Dual- vs single-layer stents for endovascular treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis

Comparing the Impact of Stenting vs. Medical Therapy for Intracranial Arterial Stenosis : A Systematic Review and One-stage and Two-stage Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

In the treatment of intracranial arterial stenosis (ICAS), controversies remain regarding the optimal treatment strategy. Our study aims to conduct an individual patient-level data meta-analysis of existing RCTs comparing PTAS versus best medical therapy and to identify differences in outcomes such as incidence of ischemic stroke or death.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials comparing the outcomes of stenting versus best medical therapy for patients who had symptomatic ICAS of >50%. Excluded studies included case reports, case series, reviews, observational studies,  letters or studies evaluating isolated angioplasty techniques without stenting. Data was extracted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

7 studies involving 1425 participants were included. There was an increased risk in the incidence of stroke and death within the first 30 days post-procedure for patients treated with PTAS over best medical therapy (RR = 2.22 [1.28-3.86], I² = 0%). Patients who underwent stenting also had a significantly higher risk of intracranial haemorrhage (RR = 12.66 [2.41-66.45], I² = 0%) and death (RR = 5.41 [1.20-24.28], I² = 0%).Under the shared frailty model, stenting when compared to medical therapy has a HR of 1.81 (95% CI:1.25-2.6) of stroke or death across 1 year. Under the parametric Royston-Parmar model, stenting has a significant decrease in the RMST(-0.83 months; 95% CI: -1.30-0.37). Stenting continued to show worse outcomes up to the 3 year mark with a HR of 1.60 (95% CI: 1.11-2.32).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There is an increased risk of peri- and post-procedural stroke and death over best medical therapy in patients with symptomatic ICAS who undergo PTAS. Further work is required to refine patient selection and mitigate peri-procedural risks.

One-Year Outcomes of CGuard Double Mesh Stent in Carotid Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Prospective single and multicenter studies have shown improved outcomes of patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with the novel CGuard dual-layer mesh stent at 1 year. Objectives: The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies to assess 1-year efficacy and outcomes of CGuard in patients with carotid stenting. Methods: A systematic search was performed. All studies enrolling at least 20 patients were included in our analysis. The primary endpoints were death (all-cause, cardiovascular and ipsilateral stroke-related death) and stroke rate at 1 year. The secondary endpoint was in-stent restenosis at 1 year. Results: The final analysis included 1709 patients. The one-year all-cause mortality rate was 2.97% (39/1699, 95% CI: 1.26-6.86%, I2 = 67%, t2 = 0.3442, p < 0.01), cardiovascular-related death was 0.92% (10/1616, 95% CI: 0.35-2.39%, I2 = 34%, t2 = 0.2302, p = 0.18), and ipsilateral stroke-related death was 0.3% (1/1649, 95% CI: 0.1-0.87%, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0, p = 0.69). The one-year ipsilateral stroke rate was 1.21% (16/1649, 95% CI: 0.58-2.5%, I2 = 28%, t2 = 0.1433, p = 0.23), transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) rate was 1.78% (19/1149, 95% CI: 1.11-2.84%, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0, p = 0.69), and total composite 1-year stroke/TIA rate was 2.97% (32/1149, 95% CI: 1.84-4.77%, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0, p = 0.41). The in-stent restenosis rate at 1 year was 1.06% (13/1653, 95% CI: 0.48-2.34%, I2 = 28%, t2 = 0.2308, p = 0.22). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that CAS with CGuard is safe with minimal neurological adverse events and in-stent restenosis rate at 1 year.