Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Stenting or Best Medical Treatment in Asymptomatic Patients with Significant Carotid Stenosis: A meta-analysis.
Aged
Asymptomatic Diseases
Cardiovascular Agents
/ adverse effects
Carotid Stenosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Endarterectomy, Carotid
/ adverse effects
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Stents
Stroke
/ etiology
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Best medical treatment
Carotid artery disease
Carotid endarterectomy
Carotid stenting
Meta-analysis
Journal
Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions
ISSN: 1878-0938
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Revasc Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101238551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
05
06
2018
accepted:
03
07
2018
pubmed:
31
7
2018
medline:
19
5
2020
entrez:
31
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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). 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30057288
pii: S1553-8389(18)30278-1
doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.07.003
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cardiovascular Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
413-423Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.