Dataset Information

Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:There is insufficient evidence regarding the optimal treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS:Bayesian cross-design and network meta-analyses were performed to compare the safety and efficacy among carotid artery stenting (CAS), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and medical treatment (MT). We identified 18 studies (4 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 14 nonrandomized, comparative studies [NRCSs]) comparing CAS with CEA, and 4 RCTs comparing CEA with MT from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. RESULTS:The risk for periprocedural stroke tended to increase in CAS, compared to CEA (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.62-4.54). However, estimates for periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) were quite heterogeneous in RCTs and NRCSs. Despite a trend of decreased risk with CAS in RCTs (OR, 0.70; 95% CrI, 0.27-1.24), the risk was similar in NRCSs (OR, 1.02; 95% CrI, 0.87-1.18). In indirect comparisons of MT and CAS, MT showed a tendency to have a higher risk for the composite of periprocedural death, stroke, MI, or nonperiprocedural ipsilateral stroke (OR, 1.30; 95% CrI, 0.74-2.73). Analyses of study characteristics showed that CEA-versus-MT studies took place about 10-year earlier than CEA-versus-CAS studies. CONCLUSIONS:A similar risk for periprocedural MI between CEA and CAS in NRCSs suggested that concerns about periprocedural MI accompanied by CEA might not matter in real-world practice when preoperative evaluation and management are working. Maybe the benefits of CAS over MT have been overestimated considering advances in medical therapy within10-year gap between CEA-versus-MT and CEA-versus-CAS studies.

SUBMITTER: Roh JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7067609 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses.

Roh Jae Hyung JH Cho Hyun Jun HJ Lee Jae Hwan JH Kim Yongku Y Park Yeongwoo Y Park Jae Hyeong JH Park Hee Soon HS Kim Minsu M Jin Hyang Gon HG Cheon Yeji Y Seong In Whan IW

Korean circulation journal 20200106 4

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>There is insufficient evidence regarding the optimal treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.<h4>Methods</h4>Bayesian cross-design and network meta-analyses were performed to compare the safety and efficacy among carotid artery stenting (CAS), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), and medical treatment (MT). We identified 18 studies (4 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 14 nonrandomized, comparative studies [NRCSs]) comparing CAS with CEA, and 4 RCTs comparing ...[more]

PMID: 32096354

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:ObjectiveWe have shown that almost 50% of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) will demonstrate cognitive impairment. Recent evidence has suggested that cerebral hypoperfusion is an important cause of cognitive impairment. Carotid stenosis can restrict blood flow to the brain, with consequent cerebral hypoperfusion. In contrast, cross-hemispheric collateral compensation through the Circle of Willis, and cerebrovascular vasodilation can also mitigate the effects of flow restriction. It is, therefore, critical to develop a clinically relevant measure of net brain perfusion in patients with ACS that could help in risk stratification and in determining the appropriate treatment. To determine whether ACS results in cerebral hypoperfusion, we developed a novel approach to quantify interhemispheric cerebral perfusion differences, measured as the time to peak (TTP) and mean transit time (MTT) delays using perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (PWI) of the whole brain. To evaluate the utility of using clinical duplex ultrasonography (DUS) to infer brain perfusion, we also assessed the relationship between the PWI findings and ultrasound-based peak systolic velocity (PSV).MethodsStructural and PWI of the brain and magnetic resonance angiography of the carotid arteries were performed in 20 patients with ≥70% ACS. DUS provided the PSV, and magnetic resonance angiography provided plaque geometric measures at the stenosis. Volumetric perfusion maps of the entire brain from PWI were analyzed to obtain the mean interhemispheric differences for the TTP and MTT delays. In addition, the proportion of brain volume that demonstrated a delay in TTP and MTT was also measured. These proportions were measured for increasing severity of perfusion delays (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 seconds). Finally, perfusion asymmetries on PWI were correlated with the PSV and stenosis features on DUS using Pearson's correlation coefficients.ResultsOf the 20 patients, 18 had unilateral stenosis (8 right and 10 left) and 2 had bilateral stenoses. The interhemispheric (left-right) TTP delays measured for the whole brain volume identified impaired perfusion in the hemisphere ipsilateral to the stenosis in 16 of the 18 patients. More than 45% of the patients had had ischemia in at least one half of their brain volume, with a TTP delay >0.5 second. The TTP and MTT delays showed strong correlations with PSV. In contrast, the correlations with the percentage of stenosis were weaker. The correlations for the PSV were strongest with the perfusion deficits (TTP and MTT delays) measured for the whole brain using our proposed algorithm (r = 0.80 and r = 0.74, respectively) rather than when measured on a single magnetic resonance angiography slice as performed in current clinical protocols (r = 0.31 and r = 0.58, respectively).ConclusionsInterhemispheric TTP and MTT delay measured for the whole brain using PWI has provided a new tool for assessing cerebral perfusion deficits in patients with ACS. Carotid stenosis was associated with a detectable reduction in ipsilateral brain perfusion compared with the opposite hemisphere in >80% of patients. The PSV measured at the carotid stenosis using ultrasonography correlated with TTP and MTT delays and might serve as a clinically useful surrogate to brain hypoperfusion in these patients.

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:BackgroundThe incidence of stroke or death in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) cannot be estimated accurately. We aimed to compare periprocedural stroke or death in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (CS) treated with CEA versus CAS.MethodsTen randomized trials (with ≥100 randomized patients per trial) compared the relative effectiveness of CAS and CEA for the prevention of stroke or death.ResultsIn the symptomatic group during the periprocedural period, the results showed that the risk of death or any stroke [risk ratio (RR): 0.627; 95% CI: 0.497-0.792; P<0.001] and the risk of any stroke (RR: 0.654; 95% CI: 0.522-0.820; P<0.001) were significantly greater with CAS than with CEA. The difference in the risk of periprocedural stroke was mostly attributed to nondisabling stroke (RR: 0.407; 95% CI: 0.264-0.627; P<0.001), which was driven especially by ipsilateral ischemic stroke (RR: 0.649; 95% CI: 0.494-0.851; P=0.002) and bradycardia or hypotension (RR: 0.105; 95% CI: 0.051-0.217; P<0.001). However, we found that the CEA group had a higher rate of myocardial infarction than the CAS group (RR: 2.496; P=0.025). Meanwhile, ipsilateral stenosis >70% increased the incidence of periprocedural death or stroke for post-CEA patients (RR: 2.166, 95% CI: 1.112 to 4.220, P=0.023), but no risk factors were identified for post-CAS. Regarding the asymptomatic group, the results demonstrated that patients randomized to CEA had a significantly reduced risk of periprocedural stroke (RR: 0.518; 95% CI: 0.281-0.954; P=0.035), which seems to be driven by periprocedural minor stroke (RR: 0.482; 95% CI: 0.231-0.982; P=0.046).ConclusionsAmong patients with symptomatic CS, CEA was associated with reduced rates of periprocedural stroke and periprocedural nondisabling stroke. Among patients with asymptomatic CS, the rates of minor stroke and stroke in general were higher with stenting than with CEA. Based on the current data, CEA is more beneficial than CAS for 30-day stroke prevention.

Dataset Information

Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses.

Publications

Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets