Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Critical Care of the Vascular Surgery Patient

Patients that require major vascular surgery suffer from widespread atherosclerosis and have multiple comorbidities that place them at increased risk for postoperative complications and require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Postoperative critical care of these patients is focused on hemodynamic optimization, and early identification and management of complications to improve outcomes.

Endarterectomy achieves lower stroke and death rates compared with stenting in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

It is currently unclear if carotid artery stenting (CAS) is as safe as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant asymptomatic stenosis. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing CAS with CEA.

METHODS

On March 17, 2017, a search for randomized controlled trials was performed in MEDLINE and Scopus databases with no time limits. We performed meta-analyses with Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. The primary safety and efficacy outcome measures were stroke or death rate at 30 days and ipsilateral stroke at 1 year (including ipsilateral stroke and death rate at 30 days), respectively. Perioperative stroke, ipsilateral stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and cranial nerve injury (CNI) were all secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

The systematic review of the literature identified nine randomized controlled trials reporting on 3709 patients allocated into CEA (n = 1479) or CAS (n = 2230). Stroke or death rate at 30 days was significantly higher for CAS (64/2176 [2.94%]) compared with CEA (27/1431 [1.89%]; OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.44; P = .044), with low level of heterogeneity beyond chance (I² = 0%). Also, stroke rate at 30 days was significantly higher for CAS (63/2176 [2.90%]) than for CEA (26/1431 [1.82%]; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.04-2.54; P = .032; I² = 0%). MI at 30 days was nonsignificantly lower for CAS (12/1815 [0.66%]) compared with CEA (16/1070 [1.50%]; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.14; P = .105; I² = 0%); however, CNI at 30 days was significantly lower for CAS (2/1794 [0.11%]) than for CEA (33/1061 [3.21%]; OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07-0.26; P < .00001; I² = 0%). Regarding the long-term outcome of stroke or death rate at 30 days plus ipsilateral stroke during follow-up, this was significantly higher for CAS (79/2173 [3.64%]) than for CEA (35/1430 [2.45%]; OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.02-2.24; P = .04; I² = 0%). Quality of evidence for all stroke outcomes was graded moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with asymptomatic stenosis undergoing carotid intervention, there is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that CEA had significantly lower 30-day stroke and also stroke or death rates compared with CAS at the cost of higher CNI and nonsignificantly higher MI rates. The long-term efficacy of CEA in ipsilateral stroke prevention, taking into account perioperative stroke and death, was preserved during follow-up. There is an urgent need for high-quality research before a firm recommendation is made that CAS is inferior or not to CEA.

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.

Interactions between cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease

OPININION STATEMENT: All patients with ischemic stroke should undergo a comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular risk. Patients with carotid artery disease, symptoms of cerebral ischemia and high cardiovascular risk profiles should be considered for noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD). Routine testing for CAD before carotid endarterctomy is not recommended. Patients with coexisting coronary and carotid artery disease should be more aggressively treated for reducing their "very high" risk of cardiovascular events. In patients candidates to carotid revascularization, a preoperative coronary angiography and coronary revascularization are not recommended. Warfarin is recommended in all patients with moderate to high risk of stroke. Novel oral anticoagulants represent an attractive alternative to warfarin. However, their place in therapy in clinical practice is not yet established. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage for stroke prophylaxis may be considered in selected patients with atrial fibrillation and contraindications for oral anticoagulant therapy. Warfarin is not indicated in patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen does not seem to be superior to medical therapy for the prevention of recurrences in patients with cryptogenic stroke.

Carotid artery stenting simulation: from patient-specific images to finite element analysis

The outcome of carotid artery stenting (CAS) depends on a proper selection of patients and devices, requiring dedicated tools able to relate the device features with the target vessel. In the present study, we use finite element analysis to evaluate the performance of three self-expanding stent designs (laser-cut open-cell, laser-cut closed-cell, braided closed-cell) in a carotid artery (CA). We define six stent models considering the three designs in different sizes and configurations (i.e. straight and tapered), evaluating the stress induced in the vessel wall, the lumen gain and the vessel straightening in a patient-specific CA model based on computed angiography tomography (CTA) images. For the considered vascular anatomy and stents, the results suggest that: (i) the laser-cut closed-cell design provides a higher lumen gain; (ii) the impact of the stent configuration and of the stent oversizing is negligible with respect to the lumen gain and relevant with respect to the stress induced in the vessel wall; (iii) stent design, configuration and size have a limited impact on the vessel straightening. The presented numerical model represents a first step towards a quantitative assessment of the relation between a given carotid stent design and a given patient-specific CA anatomy.

Carotid Artery Stenting May Be Losing the Battle against Carotid Endarterectomy for the Management of Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis, But the Jury Is Still Out

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a potential alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the management of carotid artery stenosis. The purpose of this article is to provide an evaluation and critical overview of the trials comparing the early and later results of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed/Medline, and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 1, 2009, to identify trials comparing the long-term outcomes of CAS with CEA. The MeSH terms used were “carotid artery stenting,” “carotid endarterectomy,” “symptomatic carotid artery stenosis,” “treatment,” “clinical trial,” “randomized,” and “long-term results,” in various combinations. One single-center and three multicenter randomized studies reporting their long-term results from the comparison of CAS with CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis were identified. All four studies independently reached the conclusion that CAS may not provide results equivalent to those of CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid stenosis. A higher incidence of recurrent stenosis and peri- and postprocedural events accounted for the inferior results reported for CAS compared with CEA. Current data from randomized studies indicate that CAS provides inferior long-term results compared with CEA for the management of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However, it can be argued that all of these trials were performed when both CAS equipment and CAS operators had not evolved to their current status. Given that current equipment and mature experience are required for CAS before comparing it with the current “gold standard” procedure (CEA), the results of soon-to-be reported trials (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial [CREST], International Carotid Stenting Study [ICSS], or others) may alter the current impression that CAS is inferior to CEA for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis.