Dataset Information

Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Traditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Methods and outcomes

The review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomised clinical trials comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are 30-day stroke and mortality rate, symptomatic arterial restenosis or occlusion and non-serious adverse events. The databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched (November 2019). We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low-risk of bias. We will use trial sequential analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the trial sequential analysis adjusted precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.

Ethics and dissemination

The proposed systematic review will collect and analyse data from published studies, therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results of the review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019119361.

SUBMITTER: Marsman MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7245381 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

Marsman Martijn S MS Wetterslev Jorn J Vriens Patrick W H E PWHE Bleys Ronald L A W RLAW Jahrome Abdelkarime Kh AK Moll Frans L FL Keus Frederik F Koning Giel G GG

BMJ open 20200419 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Traditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in ...[more]

PMID: 32312723

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUse of patch angioplasty in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke. The objective is to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis as well as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments comparing the benefits and harms of CEA with primary closure of the arterial wall versus CEA with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis.Methods and analysisThe review shall be conducted according to this published protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane' and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Randomised clinical trials comparing CEA with primary closure of the arterial wall versus CEA with patch angioplasty (regardless of used patch materials) in human adults with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are symptomatic or asymptomatic arterial occlusion or restenosis, and non-serious adverse events. We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low risk of bias. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the precision achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review will collect and analyse secondary data from published studies therefor ethical approval is not required. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at relevant conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42014013416.

Project description:BackgroundPatch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials is needed to compare outcomes (benefits and harms) of both techniques.MethodsSearches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases) were last updated 3rd of January 2021. We included randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (> 50%) carotid stenosis. Primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events.ResultsWe included 12 randomized clinical trials including 2187 participants who underwent 2335 operations for carotid stenosis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (1280 operations) versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure (1055 operations). Meta-analysis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure may potentially decrease the number of patients with all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; p = 0.08, best-case scenario for patch), serious adverse events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; p = 0.02, best-case scenario for patch), and the number of restenosis (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71; p < 0.01). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All the patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.ConclusionsThis systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall on all-cause mortality, < 30 days mortality, < 30 days stroke, or any other serious adverse events. These conclusions are based on data from 15 to 35 years ago, obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE, and should be interpreted cautiously. Therefore, we suggest conducting new randomized clinical trials patch angioplasty versus primary closure in carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with an internal carotid artery stenosis of 50% or more. Such trials ought to be designed according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement (Chan et al., Ann Intern Med 1:200-7, 2013) and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (Schulz et al., 7, 2010). Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to guidelines should not be abandoned.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014013416 . Review protocol publication 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026419 .

Project description:IntroductionTraditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia in traditional carotid endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to one other. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms to determine which technique, plexus anesthesia or general anesthesia is more effective for traditional carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.Methods and outcomesThe review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomized Clinical Trials comparing plexus anesthesia versus general anesthesia in traditional carotid endarterectomy will be included. Primary outcomes will be postoperative death and/ or stroke (<30 days) and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be non-serious adverse events.We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low risk of bias. We will use Trial Sequential Analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point-estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point-estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted confidence interval precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review will collect and analyze secondary data from already performed studies therefore ethical approval is not required. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at relevant conferences.

Project description:Atherosclerosis blood vessels, be it on extra-cranial or intra-cranial circulation, the most common cause of incidents such as cerebro-vascular insult (ICV). Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a preventive operation to reduce the risk of stroke and it can be performed by eversion carotid endarterectomy (E-CEA) or a classical carotid endarterectomy (C-CEA). The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the used techniques in basic perioperative results and the incidence of postoperative complications.It was retrospective-prospective study that involved 173 patients, with carotid stenosis, who underwent CEA, in the period of time December 2013 till December 2016. Subjects were divided into two groups in respect of technique: 90 patients were treated with E-CEA and 83 patients were treated with C-CEA.Between two groups revealed a significant difference in favor of the patients from group E-CEA in the length of the surgery (92.56 ± 29.11 min. vs. 104.04 ± 18.01 min., P = 0.000), the time of clamping the carotid arteries (11.83 ± 1.81 min. vs. 23.69 ± 5:39 min., p = 0.000), the amount of post-operative drainage (25.33 ± 24.67 ml. vs. 36.14 ± 14:32 ml., p = 0.001), time spent in the intensive care unit (± 25.43 vs. 13:51 hours 34.54 ± 35.81 hours, p = 0.000), and the length of stay (4.60 ± 0.90 days vs. 5:42 ± 1.80 days, p = 0.001). In the patients of the group E-CEA, fewer number of individual postoperative complications without statistical significance: ICV (2.2% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.351), cardiac arrhythmia (2.2% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.351), transitory ischaemic attack (TIA) and cognitive disorder (2.2% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.117), mortality (1.1% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.954); and the total number of postoperative complications was significantly less in the same patients (7.77% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.042).The results of this study clearly indicate that operating techniques affects the specified monitored outcomes of vascular treatment of carotid arteries in favor of E-CEA technique. It would be ideally that the conclusions of this study contribute to broader use of E-CEA in treatment of carotid stenosis.

Project description:Background and purposeCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) with patch angioplasty produces greater results than with primary closure; however, there remains uncertainty on the optimal patch material in CEA. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to evaluate the effect of angioplasty using venous patch versus synthetic patch material, and Dacron patch versus polytetrafluoroethelene (PTFE) patch material during CEA.MethodsA multiple electronic health database screening was performed including the Cochrane library, Pubmed, Ovid, EMBASE and Google Scholar on all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before November 2012 that compared the outcomes of patients undergoing CEA with venous patch versus synthetic patch. RCTs were included if they compared carotid patch angioplasty with autologus venous patch versus synthetic patch material, or compared one type of synthetic patch with another.ResultsThirteen RCTs were identified. Ten trials, involving 1946 CEAs, compared venous patch with synthetic patch materials. Two trials, involving 400 CEAs in 380 patients, compared Dacron patch with PTFE patch. The hemostasis time in CEA with PTFE patch was significantly longer than with venous patch (P<0.0001), and longer than with Dacron patch (P<0.0001). There was no significant difference of mortality rate, stroke rate, restenosis, and operative time in CEA with venous patch versus synthetic patch material, or in CEA with Dacron patch versus PTFE patch (all P>0.05). One RCT of 95 CEAs in 92 patients compared bovine pericardium with Dacron patch, and demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in intraoperative suture line bleeding with bovine pericardium compared with Dacron patch (P<0.001).ConclusionsThe hemostasis time in CEA with PTFE patch was longer than with venous patch or Dacron patch. The overall perioperative and long-term mortality rate, stroke rate, restenosis, and operative time were similar when using venous patch versus synthetic patch material or Dacron patch versus PTFE patch material during CEA. More data are required to clarify differences between different patch materials.

Project description:BackgroundAmong asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.MethodsACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.FindingsBetween Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21).InterpretationSerious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable.FundingUK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:ObjectiveTo decrease the procedural risk of carotid revascularisation it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of procedural stroke. This study analysed the features of procedural strokes associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.Materials and methodsPatients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (1,713) were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA. Procedural strokes were classified by type (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), time of onset (intraprocedural or after the procedure), side (ipsilateral or contralateral), severity (disabling or non-disabling), and patency of the treated artery. Only patients in whom the allocated treatment was initiated were included. The most likely pathophysiological mechanism was determined using the following classification system: (1) carotid-embolic, (2) haemodynamic, (3) thrombosis or occlusion of the revascularised carotid artery, (4) hyperperfusion, (5) cardio-embolic, (6) multiple, and (7) undetermined.ResultsProcedural stroke occurred within 30 days of revascularisation in 85 patients (CAS 58 out of 791 and CEA 27 out of 819). Strokes were predominately ischaemic (77; 56 CAS and 21 CEA), after the procedure (57; 37 CAS and 20 CEA), ipsilateral to the treated artery (77; 52 CAS and 25 CEA), and non-disabling (47; 36 CAS and 11 CEA). Mechanisms of stroke were carotid-embolic (14; 10 CAS and 4 CEA), haemodynamic (20; 15 CAS and 5 CEA), thrombosis or occlusion of the carotid artery (15; 11 CAS and 4 CEA), hyperperfusion (9; 3 CAS and 6 CEA), cardio-embolic (5; 2 CAS and 3 CEA) and multiple causes (3; 3 CAS). In 19 patients (14 CAS and 5 CEA) the cause of stroke remained undetermined.ConclusionAlthough the mechanism of procedural stroke in both CAS and CEA is diverse, haemodynamic disturbance is an important mechanism. Careful attention to blood pressure control could lower the incidence of procedural stroke.

Dataset Information

Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

Introduction

Methods and outcomes

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets