Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing carotid endarterectomy and endovascular treatment

Abstract

Objective and design: In order to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) we performed a meta-analysis of the presently available randomized studies.

Materials and methods: A multiple electronic health database search on all randomized trials describing CAS compared with CEA in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis was performed.

Results: Seven trials totalling 2972 patients (1480 randomized to CEA and 1492 randomized to CAS) were included in the meta-analysis. Results significantly favoured CEA over CAS in terms of death or any stroke at 30 days after procedure; the risk of death, any stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days; ipsilateral ischaemic stroke at 30 days; any stroke at 30 days; death or stroke at 6 months; and the risk of procedural failure. There was a significantly reduced risk of cranial neuropathy at 30 days after CAS. There was no significant difference between CAS and CEA groups in the odds of death or disabling stroke at 30 days, death or stroke at 1 year after the procedure, and ipsilateral intracerebral bleeding at 30 days.

Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that CEA can be performed with more safety than CAS. As a result, CEA remains the "gold standard" treatment for suitable de novo carotid stenosis and CAS should only be performed within randomized trials of stenting versus surgery.