S-EPMC6739799 - Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-Analysis of Endarterectomy and Endovascular Therapy with Routine or Selective Stenting for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease. - OmicsDI

Unknown

Dataset Information

Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-Analysis of Endarterectomy and Endovascular Therapy with Routine or Selective Stenting for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) has been the therapy of choice for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease (CFA-ASD). In the past, there was inhibition to treat CFA-ASD endovascularly with stents due to fear of stent fracture and compromise of future vascular access site. However, recent advances and new evidence suggest that CFA may no longer be a 'stent-forbidden zone'. In the light of new evidence, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the use of endovascular treatment for CFA-ASD and compare it with common femoral endarterectomy in the present era. Methods:Using certain MeSH terms we searched multiple databases for studies done on endovascular and surgical treatment of CFA-ASD in the last two decades. Inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, observational, prospective, or retrospective studies evaluating an endovascular treatment or CFE for CFA-ASD. For comparison, studies were grouped based on the treatment strategy used for CFA-ASD: endovascular treatment with selective stenting (EVT-SS), endovascular treatment with routine stenting (EVT-RS), or common femoral endarterectomy (CFE). Primary patency (PP), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and complications were the outcomes studied. We did proportional meta-analysis using a random-effect model due to heterogeneity among the included studies. If confidence intervals of two results do not overlap, then statistical significance is determined. Results:Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (7 for EVT-RS, 8 for EVT-SS, and 13 for CFE). Total limbs involved were 2914 (306 in EVT-RS, 678 in EVT-SS, and 1930 in CFE). The pooled PP at 1 year was 84% (95% CI 75-92%) for EVT-RS, 78% (95% CI 69-85%) for EVT-SS, and 93% (95% CI 90-96%) for CFE. PP at maximum follow-up in EVT-RS was 83.7% (95% CI 74-91%) and in CFE group was 88.3% (95% CI 81-94%). The pooled target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at one year was 8% (95% CI 4-13%) for EVT-RS, 19% (95% CI 14-23%) for EVT-SS, and 4.5% (95% CI 1-9%) for CFE. The pooled rate of local complications for EVT-RS was 5% (95% CI 2-10%), for EVT-SS was 7% (95% CI 3 to 12%), and CFE was 22% (95% CI 14-32%). Mortality at maximum follow-up in CFE group was 23.1% (95% CI 14-33%) and EVT-RS was 5.3% (95% CI 1-11%). Conclusion:EVT-RS has comparable one-year PP and TLR as CFE. CFE showed an advantage over EVT-SS for one-year PP. The complication rate is lower in EVT RS and EVT SS compared to CFE. At maximum follow-up, CFE and EVT-RS have similar PP but CFE has a higher mortality. These findings support EVT-RS as a management alternative for CFA-ASD.

SUBMITTER: Changal KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6739799 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-Analysis of Endarterectomy and Endovascular Therapy with Routine or Selective Stenting for Common Femoral Artery Atherosclerotic Disease.

Changal Khalid Hamid KH Syed Mubbasher Ameer MA Dar Tawseef T Mangi Muhammad Asif MA Sheikh Mujeeb Abdul MA Sheikh Mujeeb Abdul MA

Journal of interventional cardiology 20190414

<h4>Introduction</h4>Common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) has been the therapy of choice for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease (CFA-ASD). In the past, there was inhibition to treat CFA-ASD endovascularly with stents due to fear of stent fracture and compromise of future vascular access site. However, recent advances and new evidence suggest that CFA may no longer be a 'stent-forbidden zone'. In the light of new evidence, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the use of endovascula ...[more]

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarotid-artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy are both options for treating carotid-artery stenosis, an important cause of stroke.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis to undergo carotid-artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. The primary composite end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause during the periprocedural period or any ipsilateral stroke within 4 years after randomization.ResultsFor 2502 patients over a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, there was no significant difference in the estimated 4-year rates of the primary end point between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group (7.2% and 6.8%, respectively; hazard ratio with stenting, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.51; P=0.51). There was no differential treatment effect with regard to the primary end point according to symptomatic status (P=0.84) or sex (P=0.34). The 4-year rate of stroke or death was 6.4% with stenting and 4.7% with endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 1.50; P=0.03); the rates among symptomatic patients were 8.0% and 6.4% (hazard ratio, 1.37; P=0.14), and the rates among asymptomatic patients were 4.5% and 2.7% (hazard ratio, 1.86; P=0.07), respectively. Periprocedural rates of individual components of the end points differed between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group: for death (0.7% vs. 0.3%, P=0.18), for stroke (4.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.01), and for myocardial infarction (1.1% vs. 2.3%, P=0.03). After this period, the incidences of ipsilateral stroke with stenting and with endarterectomy were similarly low (2.0% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.85).ConclusionsAmong patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the risk of the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death did not differ significantly in the group undergoing carotid-artery stenting and the group undergoing carotid endarterectomy. During the periprocedural period, there was a higher risk of stroke with stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction with endarterectomy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.)

Project description:BackgroundIn the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial, we found no significant difference between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group with respect to the primary composite end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any subsequent ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up. We now extend the results to 10 years.MethodsAmong patients with carotid-artery stenosis who had been randomly assigned to stenting or endarterectomy, we evaluated outcomes every 6 months for up to 10 years at 117 centers. In addition to assessing the primary composite end point, we assessed the primary end point for the long-term extension study, which was ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period.ResultsAmong 2502 patients, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite end point between the stenting group (11.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1 to 14.8) and the endarterectomy group (9.9%; 95% CI, 7.9 to 12.2) over 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44). With respect to the primary long-term end point, postprocedural ipsilateral stroke over the 10-year follow-up occurred in 6.9% (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.7) of the patients in the stenting group and in 5.6% (95% CI, 3.7 to 7.6) of those in the endarterectomy group; the rates did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.52). No significant between-group differences with respect to either end point were detected when symptomatic patients and asymptomatic patients were analyzed separately.ConclusionsOver 10 years of follow-up, we did not find a significant difference between patients who underwent stenting and those who underwent endarterectomy with respect to the risk of periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, or death and subsequent ipsilateral stroke. The rate of postprocedural ipsilateral stroke also did not differ between groups. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Abbott Vascular Solutions; CREST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.).

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to evaluate the long-term outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) in patients who underwent both procedures on different sides.MethodsIn this single-center retrospective study (2001-2019), 117 patients (men, N = 78; median age at CEA, 64.4 [interquartile range {IQR}, 57.8-72.2] years; median age at CAS, 68.8 [IQR, 61.0-76.0] years) with ≥50% internal carotid artery stenosis who had CEA on one side and CAS on the other side were included. The risk of restenosis was estimated by treatment adjusted for patient and lesion characteristics.ResultsNeurological symptoms were significantly more common (41.9% vs 16.2%, P<0.001) and patients had a significantly shorter mean duration of smoking (30.2 [standard deviation {SD}, 22.2] years vs 31.8 [SD, 23.4] years, P<0.001), hypertension (10.1 [SD, 9.8] years vs 13.4 [SD, 9.1] years, P<0.001), hyperlipidemia (3.6 [SD, 6.6] years vs 5.0 [SD, 7.3] years, P = 0.001), and diabetes mellitus (3.9 [SD, 6.9] years vs 5.7 [SD, 8.9] years, P<0.001) before CEA compared to those before CAS. While the prevalence of heavily calcified stenoses on the operated side (25.6% vs 6.8%, P<0.001), the incidence of predominantly echogenic/echogenic plaques (53.0% vs 70.1%, P = 0.011) and suprabulbar lesions (1.7% vs 22.2%, P<0.001) on the stented side was significantly higher. Restenosis rates were 10.4% at 1 year, 22.3% at 5 years, and 33.7% at the end of the follow-up (at 11 years) for CEA, while these were 11.4%, 14.7%, and 17.2%, respectively, for CAS. Cox regression analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.10; P = 0.030) for CEA compared to that for CAS. After adjusting for relevant confounding factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, calcification severity, plaque echogenicity, and lesion location), the estimate effect size materially did not change, although it did not remain statistically significant (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.60; P = 0.070).ConclusionIntra-patient comparison of CEA and CAS in terms of restenosis tilts the balance toward CAS.