Stefanos Giannopoulos1, Pavlos Texakalidis2, Anil Kumar Jonnalagadda3, Theofilos Karasavvidis4, Spyridon Giannopoulos5, Damianos G Kokkinidis6. 1. 251 HAF and VA Hospital, Athens, Greece. 2. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 3. Division of Cardiology, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, DC, USA. 4. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 5. School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 6. Department of Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. Electronic address: kokkin@nychhc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The incidence of carotid artery stenosis after head and neck radiation is anticipated to rise due to the increasing survival of patients with head and neck malignancies. It remains unclear whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) is the best treatment strategy for radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis. MATERIALS & METHODS: This study was performed according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Eligible studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central until July 20, 2017. A meta-analysis of random effects model was conducted. The I-square statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Five studies and 143 patients were included. Periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and death rates were similar between the two revascularization approaches. However, the risk for cranial nerve (CN) injury was higher in the CEA group (OR: 7.09; 95% CI: 1.17-42.88; I2 = 0%). CEA was associated with lower mortality rates after a mean follow-up of 50 months (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.97; I2 = 0%). No difference was identified in long-term restenosis rates between CEA and CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of periprocedural stroke, MI and death. However, patients treated with CEA have a higher risk for periprocedural CN injuries and a lower risk for long-term mortality.
OBJECTIVE: The incidence of carotid artery stenosis after head and neck radiation is anticipated to rise due to the increasing survival of patients with head and neck malignancies. It remains unclear whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) is the best treatment strategy for radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis. MATERIALS & METHODS: This study was performed according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Eligible studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central until July 20, 2017. A meta-analysis of random effects model was conducted. The I-square statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Five studies and 143 patients were included. Periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and death rates were similar between the two revascularization approaches. However, the risk for cranial nerve (CN) injury was higher in the CEA group (OR: 7.09; 95% CI: 1.17-42.88; I2 = 0%). CEA was associated with lower mortality rates after a mean follow-up of 50 months (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.97; I2 = 0%). No difference was identified in long-term restenosis rates between CEA and CAS. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of periprocedural stroke, MI and death. However, patients treated with CEA have a higher risk for periprocedural CN injuries and a lower risk for long-term mortality.