Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis.


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 02 2020
Historique:
entrez: 26 2 2020
pubmed: 26 2 2020
medline: 20 6 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012. To assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone. One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence. We included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%). The combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%). In participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence). Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy. In people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Carotid artery stenting is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis. This review updates a previous version first published in 1997 and subsequently updated in 2004, 2007, and 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and risks of stenting compared with endarterectomy in people with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched August 2018) and the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to August 2018. We also searched ongoing trials registers (August 2018) and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stenting with endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. In addition, we included RCTs comparing carotid artery stenting with medical therapy alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. A second review author independently validated trial selection and a third review author independently validated data extraction. We calculated treatment effects as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with endarterectomy as the reference group. We quantified heterogeneity using the I² statistic and used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 trials involving 9753 participants. In participants with symptomatic carotid stenosis, compared with endarterectomy stenting was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural death or stroke (the primary safety outcome; OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.19; P < 0.0001, I² = 5%; 10 trials, 5396 participants; high-certainty evidence); and periprocedural death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.80; P = 0.002, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 4861 participants; high-certainty evidence). The OR for the primary safety outcome was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.64) in participants under 70 years old and 2.23 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.08) in participants 70 years old or more (interaction P = 0.007). There was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or major or disabling stroke with stenting (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.91; P = 0.08, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 4983 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared with endarterectomy, stenting was associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.94; P = 0.03, I² = 0%), cranial nerve palsy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; P < 0.00001, I² = 0%), and access site haematoma (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.68; P = 0.003, I² = 27%). The combination of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up (the primary combined safety and efficacy outcome) favoured endarterectomy (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.85; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%; 8 trials, 5080 participants; high-certainty evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period did not differ between treatments (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.47; P = 0.77, I² = 0%). In participants with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there was a non-significant increase in periprocedural death or stroke with stenting compared with endarterectomy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.97; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 7 trials, 3378 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of periprocedural death or stroke or ipsilateral stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.84; P = 0.22, I² = 0%; 6 trials, 3315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Moderate or higher carotid artery restenosis (50% or greater) or occlusion during follow-up was more common after stenting (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.60; P = 0.02, I² = 44%), but the difference in risk of severe restenosis was not significant (70% or greater; OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.00; P = 0.33, I² = 58%; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with a higher risk of periprocedural stroke or death than endarterectomy. This extra risk is mostly attributed to an increase in minor, non-disabling strokes occurring in people older than 70 years. Beyond the periprocedural period, carotid stenting is as effective in preventing recurrent stroke as endarterectomy. However, combining procedural safety and long-term efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke still favours endarterectomy. In people with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there may be a small increase in the risk of periprocedural stroke or death with stenting compared with endarterectomy. However, CIs of treatment effects were wide and further data from randomised trials in people with asymptomatic stenosis are needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32096559
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000515.pub5
pmc: PMC7041119
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD000515

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0300411
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland
Pays : International

Commentaires et corrections

Type : UpdateOf

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Références

Stroke. 2004 Jan;35(1):e18-20
pubmed: 14657456
J Vasc Surg. 1998 Aug;28(2):326-34
pubmed: 9719328
Stroke. 2010 Jun;41(6):1294-7
pubmed: 20431077
N Engl J Med. 1991 Aug 15;325(7):445-53
pubmed: 1852179
Cleve Clin J Med. 2004 Jan;71 Suppl 1:S45-6
pubmed: 14964484
Stroke. 2011 Mar;42(3):675-80
pubmed: 21307169
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374(11):1011-20
pubmed: 26886419
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Oct;7(10):1177-83
pubmed: 25240544
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Feb;6(2):101-2
pubmed: 17239792
Stroke. 2014 Sep;45(9):2750-6
pubmed: 25082808
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Jun;10(6):530-7
pubmed: 21550314
JAMA. 1995 May 10;273(18):1421-8
pubmed: 7723155
Lancet. 2016 Mar 26;387(10025):1305-11
pubmed: 26880122
Stroke. 2017 May;48(5):e130-e131
pubmed: 28386040
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2002;13(2):114-9
pubmed: 11867885
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 10;59(15):1383-9
pubmed: 22284330
J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Jan;194(1 Suppl):S9-14
pubmed: 11800361
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009 Aug;38(2):239-42
pubmed: 19540137
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;(9):CD000515
pubmed: 22972047
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Nov;54(5):1310-1316.e1; discussion 1316
pubmed: 21723064
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017 Dec;58(6):814-817
pubmed: 27332677
Lancet. 2001 Jun 2;357(9270):1729-37
pubmed: 11403808
Neurol Sci. 2005 May;26 Suppl 1:S31-3
pubmed: 15883689
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Nov 15;38(6):1589-95
pubmed: 11704367
Stroke. 1989 Jun;20(6):828
pubmed: 2728057
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;28(1):1-7
pubmed: 19420915
Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009 Feb 15;47(4):267-70
pubmed: 19570388
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007 Dec 1;70(7):1025-33
pubmed: 18044758
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005;20(2):69-77
pubmed: 15976498
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(1):66-8
pubmed: 15178989
Pak J Med Sci. 2013 Nov;29(6):1315-8
pubmed: 24550944
Neuroradiology. 2002 Feb;44(2):164-74
pubmed: 11942370
Br J Surg. 2015 Feb;102(3):194-201
pubmed: 25511816
Lancet Neurol. 2010 Apr;9(4):339-41; author reply 341-2
pubmed: 20189459
Stroke. 2011 Apr;42(4):1015-20
pubmed: 21311065
Am J Surg. 2005 Nov;190(5):696-700
pubmed: 16226942
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Nov;62(5):1227-34
pubmed: 26506270
Circulation. 2001 Jul 3;104(1):12-5
pubmed: 11435330
N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 18;356(3):306; author reply 306-7
pubmed: 17236259
N Engl J Med. 1998 Nov 12;339(20):1415-25
pubmed: 9811916
N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 19;355(16):1660-71
pubmed: 17050890
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD000515
pubmed: 17943745
Lancet. 2010 Mar 20;375(9719):985-97
pubmed: 20189239
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Oct;8(10):898-907
pubmed: 19717345
Radiologe. 2000 Sep;40(9):813-20
pubmed: 11056973
N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25;331(8):489-95
pubmed: 8041413
Am J Med. 2004 Feb 15;116(4):217-22
pubmed: 14969648
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug 17;8(9):1229-1234
pubmed: 26292586
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Aug 1;80(2):329-34
pubmed: 22556187
N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 7;351(15):1493-501
pubmed: 15470212
Lancet. 2006 Oct 7;368(9543):1239-47
pubmed: 17027729
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Apr;55(4):978-84
pubmed: 22322116
Neurosurgery. 2004 Feb;54(2):318-24; discussion 324-5
pubmed: 14744277
N Engl J Med. 2008 Apr 10;358(15):1572-9
pubmed: 18403765
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363(1):11-23
pubmed: 20505173
Lancet Neurol. 2010 Apr;9(4):353-62
pubmed: 20189458
Lancet. 2010 Sep 25;376(9746):1074-84
pubmed: 20870099
Int J Stroke. 2009 Aug;4(4):294-9
pubmed: 19689759
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD000515
pubmed: 15106153
Lancet. 2004 Mar 20;363(9413):915-24
pubmed: 15043958
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016 Jun;51(6):761-5
pubmed: 27085660
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010 Feb;29(3):282-9
pubmed: 20090320
Circulation. 2001 Jan 30;103(4):532-7
pubmed: 11157718
Lancet. 2015 Feb 7;385(9967):529-38
pubmed: 25453443
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Mar 1;75(4):519-25
pubmed: 20088016
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374(11):1021-31
pubmed: 26890472
Lancet. 2010 Sep 25;376(9746):1062-73
pubmed: 20832852
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017 Jun;53(6):766-775
pubmed: 28363431
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Feb;7(2):163-168
pubmed: 24556095
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Oct;7(10):893-902
pubmed: 18774746
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Sep;11(9):755-63
pubmed: 22857850
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(1):69-74
pubmed: 15178990
Stroke. 1999 Dec;30(12):2513-6
pubmed: 10582970
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Oct;8(10):908-17
pubmed: 19717347
Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7
pubmed: 3363593
Neuroradiology. 2008 Dec;50(12):1049-53
pubmed: 18810400
N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25;331(8):496-501
pubmed: 8041414
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Apr;47(4):760-5
pubmed: 18295439
Neurology. 2011 Sep 13;77(11):1084-90
pubmed: 21880992
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Dec;56(6):1585-90
pubmed: 22960021
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Jul;17(7):587-596
pubmed: 29861139
Clin Res Cardiol. 2014 May;103(5):345-51
pubmed: 24414075
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Jun 20;47(12):2384-9
pubmed: 16781363
Stroke. 2003 Mar;34(3):813-9
pubmed: 12624315
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Jul;48(1):93-8
pubmed: 18486419
Semin Vasc Surg. 2000 Jun;13(2):139-43
pubmed: 10879554
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(1):62-5
pubmed: 15285076
Radiology. 1996 Dec;201(3):627-36
pubmed: 8939208
Stroke. 2009 Dec;40(12):e683-93
pubmed: 19892997
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Aug;44(2):258-68
pubmed: 16890850
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Oct;7(10):885-92
pubmed: 18774745
Int J Stroke. 2017 Oct;12(7):770-778
pubmed: 28462683
J Neurosurg. 2013 Sep;119(3):642-7
pubmed: 23790113
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006 Apr;67(4):503-12
pubmed: 16548004
Stroke. 2008 Jun;39(6):1911-9
pubmed: 18388346
Lancet. 1998 May 9;351(9113):1379-87
pubmed: 9593407
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000515
pubmed: 10796382
Int J Stroke. 2010 Feb;5(1):40-6
pubmed: 20088993
J Neurol. 2007 Nov;254(11):1524-32
pubmed: 17657403
J Endovasc Surg. 1996 Feb;3(1):42-62
pubmed: 8798126
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Aug;62(2):355-61
pubmed: 26211378

Auteurs

Mandy D Müller (MD)

University Hospital Basel, Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Petersgraben 4, Basel, Switzerland, 4031.

Philippe Lyrer (P)

University Hospital Basel, Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Petersgraben 4, Basel, Switzerland, 4031.

Martin M Brown (MM)

UCL Institute of Neurology, Department of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, Box 6, The National Hospital, Queen Square, London, UK, WC1N 3BG.

Leo H Bonati (LH)

University Hospital Basel, Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Petersgraben 4, Basel, Switzerland, 4031.
UCL Institute of Neurology, Department of Brain Repair & Rehabilitation, Box 6, The National Hospital, Queen Square, London, UK, WC1N 3BG.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH