OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to provide an evidence-based review of the periprocedural safety and long-term effectiveness of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with particular attention paid to the use of embolic protection devices and patients at high risk for CEA. METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Pubmed, and Embase) were searched to identify: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of CEA and CAS, and (2) prospective clinical trials assessing the safety of CAS in patients at high surgical risk. Pooled incidence rates and one-sided 95% confidence interval for the periprocedural and long-term composite end-point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death among high surgical risk patients were generated and compared to objective performance criteria (OPC) reported by previous trials. RESULTS: Six RCTs and 14 prospective clinical trials met our search criteria. Selected RCTs showed inconsistency in reported periprocedural and long-term outcome rates. Pooled incidence rates of the periprocedural and long-term composite end-point of stroke, myocardial infarction or death in high surgical risk candidates were 5.59% and 7.92%, respectively. These results were noninferior to selected OPCs (P-value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CAS represents a safe and effective stroke prevention strategy in high surgical risk patients when compared with CEA. The inconsistent results from the RCTs and the improved outcomes in the prospective clinical trials are likely related to variability in operator experience, use of embolic protection devices, and patient selection strategies.
OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to provide an evidence-based review of the periprocedural safety and long-term effectiveness of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with particular attention paid to the use of embolic protection devices and patients at high risk for CEA. METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid Medline, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Pubmed, and Embase) were searched to identify: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of CEA and CAS, and (2) prospective clinical trials assessing the safety of CAS in patients at high surgical risk. Pooled incidence rates and one-sided 95% confidence interval for the periprocedural and long-term composite end-point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death among high surgical risk patients were generated and compared to objective performance criteria (OPC) reported by previous trials. RESULTS: Six RCTs and 14 prospective clinical trials met our search criteria. Selected RCTs showed inconsistency in reported periprocedural and long-term outcome rates. Pooled incidence rates of the periprocedural and long-term composite end-point of stroke, myocardial infarction or death in high surgical risk candidates were 5.59% and 7.92%, respectively. These results were noninferior to selected OPCs (P-value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CAS represents a safe and effective stroke prevention strategy in high surgical risk patients when compared with CEA. The inconsistent results from the RCTs and the improved outcomes in the prospective clinical trials are likely related to variability in operator experience, use of embolic protection devices, and patient selection strategies.
Authors: Mohammed Salim Al-Damluji; Kumar Dharmarajan; Weiwei Zhang; Lori L Geary; Erik Stilp; Alan Dardik; Carlos Mena-Hurtado; Jeptha P Curtis Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 24.094