Objective: A comprehensive of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to evaluate the mid-term safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for both asymptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Material and Methods: In this research, trails published from 1994 until December 31, 2021 was performed using ScienceDirect, Pubmed, Web of Science, Sage, Ebscohost, Scopus and Cochrane Central electronic databases. Major end points (any stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality) were extracted from the publications. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effects model. The Q and I2 statistic were used as a measure of heterogeneity. Results: Twelve trials involving 8,301 (4,498 with CAS; 3,803 with CEA) patients were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with CAE, stenting was associated with a significantly increased risk of mid-term any stroke (RR=1.397; 95% CI: 1.159-1.684; p<0,001) but a significantly decreased risk of mid-term myocardial infarction (RR=0,487; 95% CIs: 0.302-0.786; p=0,003). No difference was found in mid-term allcause mortality (RR=1,009; 95% CIs: 0.904-1.126; p=0,869) between the 2 interventions, yet with a minor trend toward superiority favoring CEA. No evidence of significant heterogeneity was found in any of the analysis. Conclusion: CAE was found to be superior to stenting in term of any stroke, whereas CAS was associated with a lower risk of mid-term myocardial infarction. But for robust results, further studies are needed to address the relative effectiveness of CAS versus CAE in the future.
Keywords: Carotid stenosis; meta-analysis; randomized control trials
Amaç: Bu araştırmada, yayımlanmış randomize kontrollü çalışmaların (RKÇ) sonuçları kullanılarak semptomatik veya asemptomatik karotis stenozou tedavisinde kullanılan karotis arter stentleme (KAS) ve karotis endarterektomi (KAE) yöntemlerinin orta dönem meta-analitik sonuçları değerlendirilmiştir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmada ScienceDirect, Pubmed, Web of Science, Sage, Ebscohost, Scopus ve Cochrane Central elektronik veri tabanları kullanılarak, 1994 yılından 31 Aralık 2021 tarihine kadar yayımlanan RKÇ'ler analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada tedavi sonrası yöntemlerin; inme, miyokard infarktüsü ve tüm ölüm nedeni değerlendirilmiştir. Risk Oranı (RO) ölçütü seçilerek hesaplanan etki büyüklüğü, Sabit Etkiler Modeli kullanılarak %95 güven aralığında (GA) hesaplanmıştır. Q ve I2 istatistikleri verilerin heterojenlik varsayımlarında ve verilerin analizinde kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Toplam 8.301 (KAS=4.498; KAE=3.803) hastayı içeren 12 çalışma analize dâhil edilmiştir. KAE ile karşılaştırıldığında KAS yöntemi, orta dönem inme riskinde istatistiksel olarak önemli bir atış ile sonuçlanırken [risk oranı ''risk ratio (RR)''=1,397; %95 GA: 1,159-1,684; p<0,001]; tam tersine miyokard infarktüsü bakımından istatistiksel bir azalma ile sonuçlanmıştır (RR=0,487; %95 GA: 0,302-0,786; p=0,003). Araştırmada, orta dönem tüm nedenlere bağlı ölüm oranlarında (RR=1,009; %95 GA: 0,904-1,126; p=0,869) 2 müdahale arasında hiçbir fark bulunmazken, elde edilen sonuç KAE lehine olmuştur. Analizde homojenlik varsayımları sağlanmıştır. Sonuç: Araştırmada, inme ve miyokard infarktüsü bakımından tedavi yöntemleri farklı sonuçlar üretirken, tüm ölüm nedenleri bakımından bir fark gözlenmemiştir. Tedavi yöntemlerinin birbirlerinin alternatifi olmaktan ziyade birbirlerini tamamlayan yöntemler olarak kullanılması önerilmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Karotis stenozu; metaanalizi; randomize kontrollü çalışmalar
- Song P, Fang Z, Wang H, Cai Y, Rahimi K, Zhu Y, et al. Global and regional prevalence, burden, and risk factors for carotid atherosclerosis: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and modelling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(5):e721-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mantese VA, Timaran CH, Chiu D, Begg RJ, Brott TG; CREST Investigators. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST): stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for carotid disease. Stroke. 2010;41(10 Suppl):S31-4. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Brott TG, Hobson RW 2nd, Howard G, Roubin GS, Clark WM, Brooks W, et al; CREST Investigators. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):11-23. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2010;363(5):498. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2010;363(2):198. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Lian X, Liu W, Li M, Lin M, Zhu S, Sun W, et al. Risk factors and complications associated with difficult retrieval of embolic protection devices in carotid artery stenting. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(1):43-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Morris DR, Ayabe K, Inoue T, Sakai N, Bulbulia R, Halliday A, et al. Evidence-based carotid interventions for stroke prevention: state-of-the-art review. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2017;24(4):373-87. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Erickson KM, Cole DJ. Carotid artery disease: stenting vs endarterectomy. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105 Suppl 1:i34-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Giannopoulos A, Kakkos S, Abbott A, Naylor AR, Richards T, Mikhailidis DP, et al. Long-term mortality in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis: implications for statin therapy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50(5):573-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- PRISMA [Internet]. 2020 PRISMA. [Cited: May 12, 2020]. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), 2020. Available from: [Link]
- McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. [Cited: March 12, 2020]. Available from: [Link]
- Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011; Version 5.1.0. Available from: [Link]
- Risk of Bias Tools [Internet]. © 2022 by the authors. [Cited: October 24, 2020]. Available from: [Link]
- Dinçer S. Meta-Analize Giriş. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık; 2013.
- Yadav JS, Wholey MH, Kuntz RE, Fayad P, Katzen BT, Mishkel GJ, et al; Stenting and Angioplasty with Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy Investigators. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(15):1493-501. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Steinbauer MG, Pfister K, Greindl M, Schlachetzki F, Borisch I, Schuirer G, et al. Alert for increased long-term follow-up after carotid artery stenting: results of a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of carotid artery stenting vs carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(1):93-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Eckstein HH, Ringleb P, Allenberg JR, Berger J, Fraedrich G, Hacke W, et al. Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years: a multinational, prospective, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(10):893-902. Erratum in: Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(2):135. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hoffmann A, Engelter S, Taschner C, Mendelowitsch A, Merlo A, Radue EW, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy-A prospective randomised controlled single-centre trial with long-term follow-up (BACASS). Schweizer Arch für Neurol und Psychiatr. 2008;159(2):84-9. [Crossref]
- Liu CW, Liu B, Ye W, Wu WW, Li YJ, Zheng YH, et al. [Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting: a prospective randomized trial]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009;47(4):267-70. [PubMed]
- Ederle J, Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Gaines PA, Beard JD, et al; CAVATAS Investigators. Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(10):898-907. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Mas JL, Arquizan C, Calvet D, Viguier A, Albucher JF, Piquet P, et al; EVA-3S Investigators. Long-term follow-up study of endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis trial. Stroke. 2014;45(9):2750-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bonati LH, Dobson J, Featherstone RL, Ederle J, van der Worp HB, de Borst GJ, et al; International Carotid Stenting Study investigators. Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis: the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9967):529-38. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Rosenfield K, Matsumura JS, Chaturvedi S, Riles T, Ansel GM, Metzger DC, et al; ACT I Investigators. Randomized trial of stent versus surgery for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(11):1011-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mannheim D, Karmeli R. A prospective randomized trial comparing endarterectomy to stenting in severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58(6):814-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Reiff T, Eckstein HH, Mansmann U, Jansen O, Fraedrich G, Mudra H, et al. Angioplasty in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis vs. endarterectomy compared to best medical treatment: One-year interim results of SPACE-2. Int J Stroke. 2019;15(6):1747493019833017. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Chaturvedi S, Sacco RL. How recent data have impacted the treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(11):1134-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sardar P, Chatterjee S, Aronow HD, Kundu A, Ramchand P, Mukherjee D, et al. Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for stroke prevention: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(18):2266-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- White CJ. Carotid artery stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(7):722-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Vincent S, Eberg M, Eisenberg MJ, Filion KB. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the long-term outcomes of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(6 Suppl 3):S99-108. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Li Y, Yang JJ, Zhu SH, Xu B, Wang L. Long-term efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180804. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202932. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
.: Process List