BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate randomized trials (RTs) that compare outcomes among asymptomatic patients with significant carotid stenosis undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid stenting (CAS) or best medical treatment (BMT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Data were analyzed by using the StatsDirect Statistical software (Version 2.8.0, StatsDirect Ltd). Odds ratios (OR) were used to determine effect size, along with 95% confidence interval (CI). PRISMA guidelines for conducting meta-analyses were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 10 RTs including 8771 asymptomatic patients were evaluated. Compared to CAS, 30-day all stroke risk was found to be lower after CEA (pooled OR = 0.56; CI 95% [0.312-0.989]; P = 0.046). However, other early and late outcomes were not different between CEA and CAS. Furthermore, 30-day all stroke (pooled OR = 3.43; CI 95% [1.810-6.510]; P = 0.0002), death (pooled OR = 4.75; CI 95% [1.548-14.581]; P = 0.007) and myocardial infarction (MI) (pooled OR = 9.18; CI 95% [1.668-50.524]; P = 0.011) risks were higher after CEA compared to BMT, as expected. Additionally, 30-day all stroke/death and all stroke/death/MI risks were higher after CEA compared to BMT as well. Regarding long-term results, ipsilateral stroke risk was lower after CEA compared to BMT (pooled OR = 0.46; CI 95% [0.361-0.596]; P < 0.0001) although death due to stroke risk was not different (pooled OR = 0.57; CI 95% [0.223-1.457]; P = 0.240). Unfortunately, no study comparing CAS to BMT was found. CONCLUSIONS: CEA is associated with a lower early all stroke risk compared to CAS although other early or late outcomes did not show any difference between the two methods. Additionally, CEA seems to have a benefit over BMT against long-term ipsilateral stroke, although early outcomes are worse after CEA. No studies are available comparing CAS to BMT alone.
BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate randomized trials (RTs) that compare outcomes among asymptomatic patients with significant carotid stenosis undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid stenting (CAS) or best medical treatment (BMT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Data were analyzed by using the StatsDirect Statistical software (Version 2.8.0, StatsDirect Ltd). Odds ratios (OR) were used to determine effect size, along with 95% confidence interval (CI). PRISMA guidelines for conducting meta-analyses were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 10 RTs including 8771 asymptomatic patients were evaluated. Compared to CAS, 30-day all stroke risk was found to be lower after CEA (pooled OR = 0.56; CI 95% [0.312-0.989]; P = 0.046). However, other early and late outcomes were not different between CEA and CAS. Furthermore, 30-day all stroke (pooled OR = 3.43; CI 95% [1.810-6.510]; P = 0.0002), death (pooled OR = 4.75; CI 95% [1.548-14.581]; P = 0.007) and myocardial infarction (MI) (pooled OR = 9.18; CI 95% [1.668-50.524]; P = 0.011) risks were higher after CEA compared to BMT, as expected. Additionally, 30-day all stroke/death and all stroke/death/MI risks were higher after CEA compared to BMT as well. Regarding long-term results, ipsilateral stroke risk was lower after CEA compared to BMT (pooled OR = 0.46; CI 95% [0.361-0.596]; P < 0.0001) although death due to stroke risk was not different (pooled OR = 0.57; CI 95% [0.223-1.457]; P = 0.240). Unfortunately, no study comparing CAS to BMT was found. CONCLUSIONS: CEA is associated with a lower early all stroke risk compared to CAS although other early or late outcomes did not show any difference between the two methods. Additionally, CEA seems to have a benefit over BMT against long-term ipsilateral stroke, although early outcomes are worse after CEA. No studies are available comparing CAS to BMT alone.
Authors: Xuesong Bai; Yao Feng; Long Li; Kun Yang; Tao Wang; Jichang Luo; Xue Wang; Feng Ling; Yan Ma; Liqun Jiao Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-05 Impact factor: 2.692