Zeling Guo1, Chenshu Liu2, Kan Huang2, Nan Yu3, Meixiu Peng4, Benjamin W Starnes5, Warren B Chow5, Zilun Li2, Wayne W Zhang6. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China; Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China; National-Guangdong Joint Engineering Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Vascular Diseases, Guangzhou, China. 3. Division of Vascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 4. National-Guangdong Joint Engineering Laboratory for Diagnosis and Treatment of Vascular Diseases, Guangzhou, China. 5. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 6. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Electronic address: wwzhang@uw.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The development of in-stent restenosis (ISR) hinders the long-term patency of carotid artery stenting (CAS), yet no optimal treatment has been established. In the present study, we compared the outcomes of redo CAS (rCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for ISR. METHODS: A systematic search using the terms "in-stent restenosis," "carotid endarterectomy," and "carotid artery stenting" was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting perioperative stroke, death, and other important complications of rCAS or CEA for ISR after previous CAS with four or more patients were included. Pooled and sensitivity analyses were conducted to synthesize and compare estimates of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies with 1057 patients who had undergone rCAS (n = 894) or CEA (n = 163) met the inclusion criteria. The CEA group had a significantly greater proportion of symptomatic patients (rCAS vs CEA, 30.4% vs 42.1%; P < .01). The duration from primary CAS to reintervention was relatively longer in the CEA group (rCAS vs CEA, median, 8.8 months [range, 3-26 months] vs 19.9 months [range, 0-54 months]). In the rCAS group, a greater proportion of patients had hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary artery disease and had received antiplatelet therapy before reintervention. Because of insufficient data or a low incidence, the only complications feasible for further analysis were restenosis, myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, and neck hematoma. No significant differences were found in the primary end point of mortality/stroke event-free rate (rCAS vs CEA, 99% vs 98%; P > .05) or other secondary end points (event-free restenosis, 100% vs 100%; event-free myocardial infarction, 100% vs 98%; event-free cranial nerve injury, 100% vs 98%; event-free neck hematoma, 100% vs 100% for rCAS vs CEA; P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: rCAS is commonly used to treat patients with severe and/or symptomatic ISR after primary CAS. Although the endovascular approach is less invasive, both rCAS and CEA can be performed safely with similar short- and midterm outcomes of stroke, death, and surgery-related complications.
OBJECTIVE: The development of in-stent restenosis (ISR) hinders the long-term patency of carotid artery stenting (CAS), yet no optimal treatment has been established. In the present study, we compared the outcomes of redo CAS (rCAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for ISR. METHODS: A systematic search using the terms "in-stent restenosis," "carotid endarterectomy," and "carotid artery stenting" was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting perioperative stroke, death, and other important complications of rCAS or CEA for ISR after previous CAS with four or more patients were included. Pooled and sensitivity analyses were conducted to synthesize and compare estimates of the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies with 1057 patients who had undergone rCAS (n = 894) or CEA (n = 163) met the inclusion criteria. The CEA group had a significantly greater proportion of symptomatic patients (rCAS vs CEA, 30.4% vs 42.1%; P < .01). The duration from primary CAS to reintervention was relatively longer in the CEA group (rCAS vs CEA, median, 8.8 months [range, 3-26 months] vs 19.9 months [range, 0-54 months]). In the rCAS group, a greater proportion of patients had hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary artery disease and had received antiplatelet therapy before reintervention. Because of insufficient data or a low incidence, the only complications feasible for further analysis were restenosis, myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, and neck hematoma. No significant differences were found in the primary end point of mortality/stroke event-free rate (rCAS vs CEA, 99% vs 98%; P > .05) or other secondary end points (event-free restenosis, 100% vs 100%; event-free myocardial infarction, 100% vs 98%; event-free cranial nerve injury, 100% vs 98%; event-free neck hematoma, 100% vs 100% for rCAS vs CEA; P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS:rCAS is commonly used to treat patients with severe and/or symptomatic ISR after primary CAS. Although the endovascular approach is less invasive, both rCAS and CEA can be performed safely with similar short- and midterm outcomes of stroke, death, and surgery-related complications.