These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy: meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted trial sequential analysis of randomized trials.
    Author: Bangalore S, Kumar S, Wetterslev J, Bavry AA, Gluud C, Cutlip DE, Bhatt DL.
    Journal: Arch Neurol; 2011 Feb; 68(2):172-84. PubMed ID: 20937941.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The role of carotid artery stenting (CAS) when compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is controversial, with recent trials showing an increased risk of harm with CAS. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the periprocedural and intermediate to long-term benefits and harms of CAS compared with CEA. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches for randomized clinical trials until June 2010 of CAS compared with CEA for carotid artery disease. Periprocedural (≤30-day) outcomes (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke; death or any stroke; any stroke; and MI) and intermediate to long-term outcomes (outcomes as in the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy [SAPPHIRE] trial: composite of periprocedural death, MI, or stroke plus ipsilateral stroke or death thereafter; periprocedural death or stroke plus ipsilateral stroke thereafter; death or any stroke; and any stroke) were evaluated. DATA EXTRACTION: Two of us independently extracted data in duplicate. Baseline characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, use of an embolic protection device, US vs non-US study, and the earlier-mentioned outcomes of interest were extracted from each trial. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 13 randomized clinical trials randomizing 7477 participants. Carotid artery stenting was associated with an increased risk of periprocedural outcomes of death, MI, or stroke (odds ratio = 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.59), 65% and 67% increases in death or stroke and any stroke, respectively, but with 55% and 85% reductions in the risk of MI and cranial nerve injury, respectively, when compared with CEA. The trial sequential monitoring boundary was crossed by the cumulative z curve, suggesting firm evidence for at least a 20% relative risk increase of periprocedural death or stroke and any stroke and at least a 15% reduction in MI with CAS compared with CEA. Similarly, CAS was associated with 19%, 38%, 24%, and 48% increases in the intermediate to long-term outcomes of SAPPHIRE-like outcome, periprocedural death or stroke and ipsilateral stroke thereafter, death or any stroke, and any stroke, respectively. The trial sequential monitoring boundary was crossed by the cumulative z curve, suggesting firm evidence for at least a 20% relative risk increase of any stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In this largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis to date using outcomes that are standard in contemporary studies, CAS was associated with an increased risk of both periprocedural and intermediate to long-term outcomes, but with a reduction in periprocedural MI and cranial nerve injury. Strategies are urgently needed to identify patients who are best served by CAS vs CEA.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]