Volumetric assessment of extracranial carotid artery aneurysms

Open versus endovascular repair for extracranial carotid aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Extracranial carotid artery aneurysms (ECCAs) are rare; however, they are associated with a high risk of stroke and mortality if untreated. In the present review, we compared the major outcomes between open and endovascular repair of ECCAs.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for clinical studies reported online up to September 2020 that had evaluated major outcomes after both open and endovascular repair of ECCAs. Eligible studies were required to have evaluated at least the 30-day mortality or stroke and/or transient ischemic attack rates. The quality of the studies was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, seven studies (three high quality, two medium quality, and two low quality) with 374 patients and 383 ECCAs were eligible. All the studies had been reported from 2004 to 2020. In total, 220 open repairs were compared with 81 endovascular repairs. The open and endovascular treatments showed similar 30-day mortality rates (4% vs 0%; pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.291-24.451) and stroke and transient ischemic attack rates (5.5% vs 1.2%; pooled OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.412-4.886). Open repair was associated in six studies with a greater incidence of cranial nerve injury compared with endovascular repair (14.5% vs 0%; OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 1.178-13.471). The hematoma or bleeding rate was also similar between the two methods in six studies (5.2% vs 0%; OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.518-7.094).

CONCLUSIONS

Open and endovascular repair of ECCAs is associated with similarly low early mortality and cerebrovascular event rates, although open repair showed a greater risk of cranial nerve injuries. An endovascular approach could be more appropriate when the aneurysm is located distally or requires extensive dissection. More studies are needed with standardized follow-up durations to evaluate late outcomes.