Abstract WP268: Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization of Symptomatic Internal Carotid Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Stroke (1970) Vol. 55; no. Suppl_1
• Main Authors: Ghannam, Malik, Almajali, Mohammad, Al Qudah, Abdullah, Khasiyev, Farid, Dibas, Mahmoud, Ghazaleh, Dana, Roeder, Hannah, Henninger, Nils, de Havenon, Adam H, Derdeyn, Colin P, Leira, Enrique C, Chaturvedi, Seemant, Yaghi, Shadi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.02.2024
• ISSN: 0039-2499; 1524-4628
• DOI: 10.1161/str.55.suppl_1.WP268

Abstract only Introduction: TCAR is an interventional therapy for symptomatic ICA disease. Currently, the utilization of TCAR is contentious due to limited evidence. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing existing studies to evaluate the postoperative outcomes and complications of TCAR as compared to CAS and CEA for patients with symptomatic ICA disease. Methods: A systematic review was conducted, spanning from January 2000 to February 2023, encompassing studies that employed TCAR for the treatment of symptomatic ICA disease. The primary outcomes included 30-day combined stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), and mortality. This was explained in Figure 1. Results: A total of seven studies involving 24,246 patients were analyzed. Compared to CAS, TCAR was associated with a similar rate of stroke and TIA (OR:0.77,95%CI:0.33-1.82), and MI (OR:1.29,95%CI:0.83-2.01) but lower mortality (OR:0.42,95%CI:0.22-0.81). In patients, ≥80 years, the rate of stroke and TIA was lower with TCAR compared to CAS (OR:0.47,95%CI:0.35-0.65). When compared to CEA, TCAR was associated with a higher rate of stroke and TIA (OR:1.26,95%CI:1.03-1.54) but without differing rates of MI (OR:0.9,95%CI:0.64-1.38), and mortality (OR:1.35,95%CI:0.87-2.10). this was explained in figure 2. Conclusions: Although CEA has traditionally been considered superior to stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis, TCAR may have some advantages over CAS, particularly in the elderly population (≥80 years). Prospective randomized trials comparing the three modalities are needed.