Comparison of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: a single center study

Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Single-cohort studies suggest that second-generation stents (SGS; “mesh stents”) may improve carotid artery stenting (CAS) outcomes by limiting peri- and postprocedural cerebral embolism. SGS differ in the stent frame construction, mesh material, and design, as well as in mesh-to-frame position (inside/outside). Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of SGS in relation to first-generation stents (FGSs; single-layer) in CAS. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies with FGSs and SGS (PRISMA methodology, 3302 records). Endpoints were 30-day death, stroke, myocardial infarction (DSM), and 12-month ipsilateral stroke (IS) and restenosis (ISR). A random-effect model was applied. Results: Data of 68,422 patients from 112 eligible studies (68.2% men, 44.9% symptomatic) were meta-analyzed. Thirty-day DSM was 1.30% vs. 4.11% (p < 0.01, data for SGS vs. FGS). Among SGS, both Casper/Roadsaver and CGuard reduced 30-day DSM (by 2.78 and 3.03 absolute percent, p = 0.02 and p < 0.001), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. SGSs significantly improved outcomes compared with closed-cell FGS (30-day stroke 0.6% vs. 2.32%, p = 0.014; DSM 1.3% vs. 3.15%, p < 0.01). At 12 months, in relation to FGS, Casper/Roadsaver reduced IS (−3.25%, p < 0.05) but increased ISR (+3.19%, p = 0.04), CGuard showed a reduction in both IS and ISR (−3.13%, −3.63%; p = 0.01, p < 0.01), whereas the Gore stent was neutral. Conclusions: Pooled SGS use was associated with improved short- and long-term clinical results of CAS. Individual SGS types, however, differed significantly in their outcomes, indicating a lack of a “mesh stent” class effect. Findings from this meta-analysis may provide clinically relevant information in anticipation of large-scale randomized trials.

Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to analyse the timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) after the index event as well as 30 day outcomes at varying time periods within 14 days of symptom onset.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement, comprising an online search of the Medline and Cochrane databases. Methodical quality assessment of the included studies was performed. Endpoints included procedural stroke and/or death stratified by delay from the index event and surgical technique (CEA/CAS).

RESULTS

Seventy-one studies with 232 952 symptomatic patients were included. Overall, 34 retrospective analyses of prospective databases, nine prospective, three RCT, three case control, and 22 retrospective studies were included. Compared with CEA, CAS was associated with higher 30 day stroke (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.85) and mortality rates (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31 - 0.53) when performed ≤ 2 days of symptom onset. Patients undergoing CEA/CAS were analysed in different time frames (≤ 2 vs. 3 - 14 and ≤ 7 vs. 8 - 14 days). Expedited CEA (vs. 3 - 14 days) presented a sampled 30 day stroke rate of 1.4%; 95% CI 0.9 - 1.8 vs. 1.8%; 95% CI 1.8 - 2.0, with no statistically significant difference. Expedited CAS (vs. 3 - 14 days) was associated with no difference in stroke rate but statistically significantly higher mortality rate (OR 2.76; 95% CI 1.39 - 5.50).

CONCLUSION

At present, CEA is safer than transfemoral CAS within 2/7 days of symptom onset. Also, considering absolute rates, expedited CEA complies with the accepted thresholds in international guidelines. The ideal timing for performing CAS (when indicated against CEA) is not yet defined. Additional granular data and standard reporting of timing of intervention will facilitate future monitoring.

[Carotid endarterectomy with stent removal in a patient with early bilateral restenosis of the internal carotid arteries in the acute period of recurrent ischemic stroke]

We present a rare clinical observation of a patient with an early reoperation performed up to 2 weeks after a recurrent stroke. Carotid endarterectomy with removal of previously installed stents for critical stenoses of the internal carotid arteries after the first stroke was performed. Early bilateral restenosis up to 80-90% of the lumen in the stents of both internal carotid arteries was observed 6 months after stenting. Open interventions were performed in the acute period of recurrent ischemic stroke in two stages with a favorable outcome. No data on the increase of neurological symptoms were obtained for 2 years of observation. Treatment and application of early rehabilitation methods, improved the patient's general condition, strength in the left extremities increased up to 4.5 points, left-sided hemihypesthesia decreased, speech disorders regressed. The patient walks and serves himself independently.

Early Outcomes of Carotid Revascularization in Retrospective Case Series

Background: Most data in carotid stenosis treatment arise from randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare 30-day outcomes in real-world practice from centers providing both modalities. Methods: A data search of the English literature was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, until December 2019, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies reporting on 30-day outcomes from centers, where both techniques were performed, were eligible for this analysis. Results: In total, 15 articles were included (16,043 patients). Of the patients, 68.1% were asymptomatic. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) did not differ from carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in terms of stroke (odds ratio (OR) 0.98; 0.77–1.25; I² = 0%), myocardial ischemic events (OR 1.03; 0.72–1.48; I² = 0%) and all events (OR 1.0; 0.82–1.21; I² = 0%). Pooled stroke incidence in asymptomatic patients was 1% (95% CI: 0–2%) for CEA and 1% for CAS (95% CI: 0–2%). Pooled stroke rate in symptomatic patients was 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CEA and 3% (95% CI: 1–4%) for CAS. The two techniques did not differ in either outcome both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Conclusion: Carotid revascularization, performed in centers providing both CAS and CEA, is safe and effective. Both techniques did not differ in terms of post-procedural neurological and cardiac events, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. These findings reiterate the importance of a tailored therapeutic strategy and that “real-world” outcomes may only be valid from centers providing both treatments.

Comparison of postoperative results between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for patients with contralateral carotid artery occlusion: A meta-analysis

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting in contralateral carotid occlusion patients who needed reperfusion.

Methods

This study retrieved potential academic articles comparing results between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for patients with contralateral carotid occlusion from the MEDLINE database, the PubMed database the EMBASE database, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to May 2018. The reference articles for the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available documents were represented in the study.

Results

Four retrospective cohort study involving 6252 patients with contralateral carotid occlusion were included in our meta-analysis. During 30-day follow-up, there is significant difference in post-procedure mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.476, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.306–0.740), P = 0.001); no significant differences are not found in post-procedure stroke (risk difference (RD) = 0.002, 95%CI (–0.007 to 0.011); P = 0.631), myocardial infarction (RD = 0.003, 95%CI (–0.002 to 0.008); P = 0.301), and transient cerebral ischemia (RD = 1.059, 95%CI (–0.188 to 5.964); P = 0.948).

Conclusions

Carotid endarterectomy was associated with a lower incidence of mortality compared to carotid artery stenting for patients with contralateral carotid occlusion. Regarding stroke, myocardial infarction, and transient ischemic attack, there was no significant difference between the two groups. More randomized controlled trials and prospective cohorts are necessary to help further clarify the ideal approach for these patients.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study

There are disparities among the results of meta-analyses under different circumstances of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid stenosis. This study aimed to assess the efficacies of CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis at 5-year intervals and worldwide.Comparative studies simultaneously reporting CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis with at least 10 patients in each group were identified by searching PubMed and Embase in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles.The studies were stratified into different subgroups according to the publication year, location in which the study was mainly performed, and randomized and nonrandomized study designs.Thirty-five comparative studies encompassing 27,525 patients were identified. The risk ratios (RRs) of stroke/death when CAS was compared with CEA within 30 d of treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.32-1.74, P < 0.001) for overall, 1.50 (95% CI 1.14-1.98, P = 0.004) from 2011 to 2015, 1.61 (95% CI 1.35-1.91, P < 0.001) from 2006 to 2010, 1.59 (95% CI 1.27-1.99, P < 0.001) in North America, 1.50 (95% CI 1.24-1.81, P < 0.001) in Europe, 1.63 (95% CI 1.31-2.02, P < 0.001) for randomized, and 1.44 (95% CI 1.20-1.73, P < 0.001) for nonrandomized comparative studies. CEA decreased the risks of transient ischemic attack at 30 d (RR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.50-2.85, P < 0.001) and restenosis at 1-year (RR: 1.97, 95% CI 1.28-3.05, P = 0.002). Data from follow-up showed that the RRs of stroke/death were 0.74 (95% CI 0.55-0.99, P = 0.04) at 1 year, 1.24 (95% CI 1.04-1.46, P = 0.01) at 4 year, and 2.27 (95% CI 1.39-3.71, P = 0.001) at 10 year. This systematic review, compared with those of other meta-analyses, included all available comparative studies and analyzed them at 5-year intervals, in different continents, and under different study designs. Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of CEA is superior to CAS for freedom from stroke/death within 30 d, especially from 2006 to 2015, in North America and Europe. Meanwhile, the superiority was also observed for restenosis at 1-year, transient ischemic attack within 30 d, and stroke/death at 4- and 10-year follow-ups.

Carotid revascularization: risks and benefits

Despite a decline during the recent decades in stroke-related death, the incidence of stroke has remained unchanged or slightly increased, and extracranial carotid artery stenosis is implicated in 20%–30% of all strokes. Medical therapy and risk factor modification are first-line therapies for all patients with carotid occlusive disease. Evidence for the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis greater than 70% with either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is compelling, and several trials have demonstrated a benefit to carotid revascularization in the symptomatic patient population. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is more controversial, with the largest trials only demonstrating a 1% per year risk stroke reduction with CEA. Although there are sufficient data to advocate for aggressive medical therapy as the primary mode of treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there are also data to suggest that certain patient populations will benefit from a stroke risk reduction with carotid revascularization. In the United States, consensus and practice guidelines dictate that CEA is reasonable in patients with high-grade asymptomatic stenosis, a reasonable life expectancy, and perioperative risk of less than 3%. Regarding CAS versus CEA, the best-available evidence demonstrates no difference between the two procedures in early perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or death, and no difference in 4-year ipsilateral stroke risk. However, because of the higher perioperative risks of stroke in patients undergoing CAS, particularly in symptomatic, female, or elderly patients, it is difficult to recommend CAS over CEA except in populations with prohibitive cardiac risk, previous carotid surgery, or prior neck radiation. Current treatment paradigms are based on identifying the magnitude of perioperative risk in patient subsets and on using predictive factors to stratify patients with high-risk asymptomatic stenosis.