Cargando…

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 studi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Lei, Zhao, Zhiqing, Ouyang, Yaoming, Bao, Junmin, Lu, Qingsheng, Feng, Rui, Zhou, Jian, Jing, Zaiping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26131824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001060
_version_ 1782381502948966400
author Zhang, Lei
Zhao, Zhiqing
Ouyang, Yaoming
Bao, Junmin
Lu, Qingsheng
Feng, Rui
Zhou, Jian
Jing, Zaiping
author_facet Zhang, Lei
Zhao, Zhiqing
Ouyang, Yaoming
Bao, Junmin
Lu, Qingsheng
Feng, Rui
Zhou, Jian
Jing, Zaiping
author_sort Zhang, Lei
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4504641
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45046412015-08-05 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study Zhang, Lei Zhao, Zhiqing Ouyang, Yaoming Bao, Junmin Lu, Qingsheng Feng, Rui Zhou, Jian Jing, Zaiping Medicine (Baltimore) 3400 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. Wolters Kluwer Health 2015-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4504641/ /pubmed/26131824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001060 Text en Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even for commercial purposes, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
spellingShingle 3400
Zhang, Lei
Zhao, Zhiqing
Ouyang, Yaoming
Bao, Junmin
Lu, Qingsheng
Feng, Rui
Zhou, Jian
Jing, Zaiping
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study
title Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study
title_full Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study
title_fullStr Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study
title_short Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study
title_sort systematic review and meta-analysis of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for carotid stenosis: a chronological and worldwide study
topic 3400
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504641/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26131824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001060
work_keys_str_mv AT zhanglei systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy
AT zhaozhiqing systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy
AT ouyangyaoming systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy
AT baojunmin systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy
AT luqingsheng systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy
AT fengrui systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy
AT zhoujian systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy
AT jingzaiping systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofcarotidarterystentingversusendarterectomyforcarotidstenosisachronologicalandworldwidestudy