Cargando…
Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature
OBJECTIVE: To compare peri-operative any symptomatic stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), based on the application or absence of a cerebral protection device. METHODS: A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central was done across an online data base fr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Neurosurgical Society
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6046577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29631386 http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2017.0202.001 |
_version_ | 1783339841563394048 |
---|---|
author | Cho, Young Dae Kim, Sung-Eun Lim, Jeong Wook Choi, Hyuk Jai Cho, Yong Jun Jeon, Jin Pyeong |
author_facet | Cho, Young Dae Kim, Sung-Eun Lim, Jeong Wook Choi, Hyuk Jai Cho, Yong Jun Jeon, Jin Pyeong |
author_sort | Cho, Young Dae |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare peri-operative any symptomatic stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), based on the application or absence of a cerebral protection device. METHODS: A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central was done across an online data base from January 1995 to October 2016. Procedures which were performed due to carotid dissection or aneurysm, procedures using covered stents or conducted in an emergency, were excluded. The primary endpoint was perioperative any symptomatic stroke within 30 days after the procedure. A fixed effect model was used in cases of heterogeneity less than 50%. RESULTS: In the 25 articles included in this study, the number of stroke events was 326 (2.0%) in protected CAS and 142 (3.4%) in unprotected CAS. The use of cerebral protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS (odds ratio [OR] 0.633, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.479–0.837, p=0.001). In the publication bias analysis, Egger’s regression test disclosed that the intercept was -0.317 (95% CI -1.015–0.382, p=0.358). Regarding symptomatic patients (four studies, 539 CAS procedures), the number of stroke was six (1.7%) in protected CAS and 11 (5.7%) in unprotected CAS. The protective effect against stroke events by cerebral protection device did not have a statistical significance (OR 0.455, 95% CI 0.151–1.366, p=0.160). CONCLUSION: The use of protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS. However, its efficacy was not demonstrated in symptomatic patients. Routine use of protection device during CAS should be critically assessed before mandatory use. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6046577 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Korean Neurosurgical Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60465772018-07-16 Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature Cho, Young Dae Kim, Sung-Eun Lim, Jeong Wook Choi, Hyuk Jai Cho, Yong Jun Jeon, Jin Pyeong J Korean Neurosurg Soc Clinical Article OBJECTIVE: To compare peri-operative any symptomatic stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), based on the application or absence of a cerebral protection device. METHODS: A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central was done across an online data base from January 1995 to October 2016. Procedures which were performed due to carotid dissection or aneurysm, procedures using covered stents or conducted in an emergency, were excluded. The primary endpoint was perioperative any symptomatic stroke within 30 days after the procedure. A fixed effect model was used in cases of heterogeneity less than 50%. RESULTS: In the 25 articles included in this study, the number of stroke events was 326 (2.0%) in protected CAS and 142 (3.4%) in unprotected CAS. The use of cerebral protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS (odds ratio [OR] 0.633, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.479–0.837, p=0.001). In the publication bias analysis, Egger’s regression test disclosed that the intercept was -0.317 (95% CI -1.015–0.382, p=0.358). Regarding symptomatic patients (four studies, 539 CAS procedures), the number of stroke was six (1.7%) in protected CAS and 11 (5.7%) in unprotected CAS. The protective effect against stroke events by cerebral protection device did not have a statistical significance (OR 0.455, 95% CI 0.151–1.366, p=0.160). CONCLUSION: The use of protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS. However, its efficacy was not demonstrated in symptomatic patients. Routine use of protection device during CAS should be critically assessed before mandatory use. Korean Neurosurgical Society 2018-07 2018-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6046577/ /pubmed/29631386 http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2017.0202.001 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Korean Neurosurgical Society This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Article Cho, Young Dae Kim, Sung-Eun Lim, Jeong Wook Choi, Hyuk Jai Cho, Yong Jun Jeon, Jin Pyeong Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature |
title | Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature |
title_full | Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature |
title_fullStr | Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature |
title_full_unstemmed | Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature |
title_short | Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature |
title_sort | protected versus unprotected carotid artery stenting : meta-analysis of the current literature |
topic | Clinical Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6046577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29631386 http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2017.0202.001 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT choyoungdae protectedversusunprotectedcarotidarterystentingmetaanalysisofthecurrentliterature AT kimsungeun protectedversusunprotectedcarotidarterystentingmetaanalysisofthecurrentliterature AT limjeongwook protectedversusunprotectedcarotidarterystentingmetaanalysisofthecurrentliterature AT choihyukjai protectedversusunprotectedcarotidarterystentingmetaanalysisofthecurrentliterature AT choyongjun protectedversusunprotectedcarotidarterystentingmetaanalysisofthecurrentliterature AT jeonjinpyeong protectedversusunprotectedcarotidarterystentingmetaanalysisofthecurrentliterature |