Petroula Nana1, George Kouvelos1, Alexandros Brotis2, Konstantinos Spanos1, Efthimios Dardiotis3, Miltiadis Matsagkas1, Athanasios Giannoukas1. 1. Vascular Surgery Department, Larissa University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, 41334 Larissa, Greece. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Larissa University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, 38221 Volos, Greece. 3. Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Larissa, School of Medicine, University of Thessaly, 38221 Volos, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most data in carotid stenosis treatment arise from randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare 30-day outcomes in real-world practice from centers providing both modalities. METHODS: A data search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, until December 2019, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies reporting on 30-day outcomes from centers, where both techniques were performed, were eligible for this analysis. RESULTS: In total, 15 articles were included (16,043 patients). Of the patients, 68.1% were asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) did not differ from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 0.77-1.25; I2 = 0%), myocardial ischemic events (OR 1.03; 0.72-1.48; I2 = 0%) and all events (OR 1.0; 0.82-1.21; I2 = 0%). Pooled stroke incidence in asymptomatic patients was 1% (95% CI: 0-2%) for CEA and 1% for CAS (95% CI: 0-2%). Pooled stroke rate in symptomatic patients was 3% (95% CI: 1-4%) for CEA and 3% (95% CI: 1-4%) for CAS. The two techniques did not differ in either outcome both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: Carotid revascularization, performed in centers providing both CAS and CEA, is safe and effective. Both techniques did not differ in terms of post-procedural neurological and cardiac events, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. These findings reiterate the importance of a tailored therapeutic strategy and that "real-world" outcomes may only be valid from centers providing both treatments.
BACKGROUND: Most data in carotid stenosis treatment arise from randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare 30-day outcomes in real-world practice from centers providing both modalities. METHODS: A data search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, until December 2019, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies reporting on 30-day outcomes from centers, where both techniques were performed, were eligible for this analysis. RESULTS: In total, 15 articles were included (16,043 patients). Of the patients, 68.1% were asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) did not differ from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 0.77-1.25; I2 = 0%), myocardial ischemic events (OR 1.03; 0.72-1.48; I2 = 0%) and all events (OR 1.0; 0.82-1.21; I2 = 0%). Pooled stroke incidence in asymptomatic patients was 1% (95% CI: 0-2%) for CEA and 1% for CAS (95% CI: 0-2%). Pooled stroke rate in symptomatic patients was 3% (95% CI: 1-4%) for CEA and 3% (95% CI: 1-4%) for CAS. The two techniques did not differ in either outcome both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: Carotid revascularization, performed in centers providing both CAS and CEA, is safe and effective. Both techniques did not differ in terms of post-procedural neurological and cardiac events, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. These findings reiterate the importance of a tailored therapeutic strategy and that "real-world" outcomes may only be valid from centers providing both treatments.
Authors: A R Naylor; A Bolia; R J Abbott; I F Pye; J Smith; N Lennard; A J Lloyd; N J London; P R Bell Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Paola Moresoli; Bettina Habib; Pauline Reynier; Matthew H Secrest; Mark J Eisenberg; Kristian B Filion Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jonathan A Cook; Andrew Elders; Charles Boachie; Ted Bassinga; Cynthia Fraser; Doug G Altman; Isabelle Boutron; Craig R Ramsay; Graeme S MacLennan Journal: Trials Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Kamran Hajiyev; Victoria Hellstern; Alexandru Cimpoca; Christina Wendl; Hansjörg Bäzner; Hans Henkes; Philipp von Gottberg Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 4.964