Long-term efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 12; no. 7; p. e0180804
• Main Authors: Li, Yang, Yang, Jing-Jing, Zhu, Su-Hui, Xu, Biao, Wang, Lian
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 14.07.2017; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Analysis; Angioplasty; Biology and Life Sciences; Cardiology; Carotid arteries; Carotid Arteries - surgery; Carotid artery; Carotid Stenosis - mortality; Carotid Stenosis - surgery; Carotid Stenosis - therapy; Cerebral infarction; Chinese medicine; Clinical trials; Comparative analysis; Databases, Factual; Death; Effectiveness; Endarterectomy; Endarterectomy, Carotid; Health risks; Health services; Heart attacks; Heterogeneity; Humans; Infarction; Medical electronics; Medical treatment; Medicine and Health Sciences; Meta-analysis; Mortality; Myocardial infarction; Odds Ratio; Patients; Physical Sciences; Randomization; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research and Analysis Methods; Restenosis; Risk; Risk Factors; Safety; Safety and security measures; Stenosis; Stents; Stents - adverse effects; Stroke; Stroke - etiology; Studies; Traditional Chinese medicine; Treatment Outcome; Nanjing China; China
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180804

Many recent trials have investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of endarterectomy versus stenting in treating patients with carotid artery stenosis. We aimed to determine the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of both procedures by pooling this evidence in a meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published until May 6, 2016. Randomized controlled trials, which reported outcomes of interest with a median follow-up of at least 4-year, were included. Eight trials involving 7005 patients and 41824 patient-years of follow-up were included. In terms of the periprocedural outcomes, stenting was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80; P = 0.003) but a higher risk of death or stroke (the composite endpoint, OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.38 to 2.25; P < 0.0001), a result that was primarily driven by minor stroke (OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.59 to 3.01; P < 0.0001), less so by periprocedural death (OR: 1.68; 95% CI: 0.82 to 3.44; P = 0.16) and major stroke (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.09; P = 0.09). In terms of the long-term outcomes, stenting was associated with a higher risk of stroke (OR 1.45; 95% CI: 1.22 to 1.73; P < 0.0001) and the composite outcome of death or stroke (OR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.48; P = 0.01). No difference was found in long-term all-cause mortality between stenting and endarterectomy (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.26; P = 0.21) and restenosis (OR: 1.48 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.35; P = 0.10). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was found in any of the analyses. Carotid endarterectomy was found to be superior to stenting for short- and long-term outcomes, although endarterectomy was associated with a higher risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. Carotid endarterectomy should be offered as the first choice for carotid stenosis at present, however, more evidence is needed because rapid progress in concurrent devices and medical treatments is being made.