Dataset Information

Comparison the effects of carotid endarterectomy with carotid artery stenting for contralateral carotid occlusion.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There have been inconsistent results regarding the use of carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid artery stenting (CAS) for contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO). This study aimed to determine the optimal revascularization technique for patients with CCO.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify eligible studies published from inception to January 2, 2021. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed.

Results

Six studies involving 6,953 patients were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that while CEA was not associated with an increased risk of stroke compared to CAS (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.75-1.51; P = 0.713), CEA was associated with a reduced risk of death compared to CAS (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.29-0.70; P < 0.001). Furthermore, there were no significant differences between CEA and CAS for the risks of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.73-2.62; P = 0.319) or major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.56-1.88; P = 0.926). Finally, the risk of myocardial infarction for CEA versus CAS was affected by disease status, while the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was affected by the proportions of patients with male gender, coronary artery disease, and current or prior smoking.

Conclusion

This study found that CEA and CAS resulted in similar outcomes for patients with CCO, while the risk of death was reduced in patients treated with CEA. Further high-level evidence should be collected to verify the results of this study.

SUBMITTER: Sun Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8136671 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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:Patients with contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) have been excluded from randomized clinical trials because of a deemed high risk for adverse neurologic outcomes with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Evidence for this rationale is limited and conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes after CEA between patients with and without CCO and varying degrees of contralateral carotid stenosis (CCS).We identified patients undergoing CEA from 2003 to 2015 in the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) registry. Patients were stratified by preoperative symptom status and presence of CCO. Multivariable analysis was used to account for differences in demographics and comorbidities. Our primary outcome was 30-day stroke/death risk.Of 15,487 patients we identified who underwent CEA, 10,377 (67%) were asymptomatic. CCO was present in 914 patients, of whom 681 (75%) were asymptomatic. Overall, the 30-day stroke/death was 2.0% for symptomatic patients (CCO: 2.6%) and 1.1% for asymptomatic patients (CCO: 2.3%). After adjustment, including symptom status, CCO was associated with higher 30-day stroke/death (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.3; P = .001), any in-hospital stroke (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.6; P < .001), in-hospital ipsilateral stroke (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-4.0; P = .02), in-hospital contralateral stroke (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 2.2-11.4; P < .001), and prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001). CCS of 80% to 99% was only associated with a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; P = .01), not with in-hospital stroke. Neither CCO nor CCS was associated with 30-day mortality.Although CCO increases the risk of 30-day stroke/death, in-hospital strokes, and prolonged length of stay after CEA, the 30-day stroke/death rates in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with CCO remain within the recommended thresholds set by the 14 societies' guideline document. Thus, CCO should not qualify as a high-risk criterion for CEA. Moreover, there is no evidence that patients with CCO have lower stroke/death rates after carotid artery stenting than after CEA. We believe that CEA remains a valid and safe option for patients with CCO and that CCO should not be applied as a criterion to promote carotid artery stenting per se.

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.

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:BACKGROUND:Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are alternative strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atherosclerotic carotid disease. CEA has been considered the first-line treatment for carotid stenosis worldwide, and the safety and efficacy of CAS compared to CEA remains in question. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to compare the practice and outcomes of CAS and CEA in a real-world setting within public university hospitals in Brazil. METHODS:This study will be a prospective 5-year analysis of treatment for atherosclerotic carotid stenosis with CEA and CAS performed at 5 centers affiliated with the Vascular Study Group at public university hospitals in Brazil. The indications for the procedures will be determined by each surgeon's individual discretion, in accordance with preoperative risk evaluation. The primary outcome measures will be (1) any in-hospital stroke or death, and (2) any per-procedural stroke, death, or myocardial infarction (MI). Patients undergoing CEA in conjunction with cardiac surgery will be excluded from the study. Multivariate logistic regression will be performed to identify predictors of stroke or death in patients undergoing CEA and CAS. All tests of significance will be performed at the .05 level. This study was approved by the Committee of Ethics in Research at the University Hospital of Ribeirao Preto Medical School, and in all other participating institutions linked to National Research System and National Board of Health in Brazil (Process 15695/2011). RESULTS:This study is currently in the recruitment phase, and the final patient is expected to be enrolled by the end of 2018. We hope to recruit approximately 800 patients to the study. Analyses will focus on primary end points for patients that are allocated to each treatment group. During the per-procedural period, the occurrence of the primary end point components (stroke, MI, or death) for CAS and CEA will be analyzed for symptomatic or asymptomatic subjects. CONCLUSIONS:The analyses of the primary endpoints (and all others variables of the study) are expected to be published in 2019 in a peer reviewed journal, and results will be presented at scientific meetings, with summary results published online. This study will obtain new data related to the quality of treatment for carotid disease in Brazil at the primary training centers of future vascular surgeons, but the initial data that will be obtained and published (with the outcomes and complications) are restricted to the first 30 days postprocedure. This time restriction limits the comparison of the results that relate to the main goal of treatment, which is to decrease the risk of stroke over 5 years. The purpose of the study group is to continue the monitoring of patient records, and evaluate the follow-up data in the 5 years following the initial evaluation. This study protocol will contribute very significantly to improving the care of patients with carotid disease, in addition to qualifying the level of assistance provided in public university hospitals in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02538276; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02538276 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m7APnFLD).