Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2010 Jun;29(3):205-15.

Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid angioplasty with or without stenting for treatment of carotid artery stenosis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Affiliations
  • PMID: 20502407
Meta-Analysis

Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid angioplasty with or without stenting for treatment of carotid artery stenosis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

C Bakoyiannis et al. Int Angiol. 2010 Jun.

Abstract

Carotid angioplasty with or without stent placement (CAS) has been proposed as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular techniques with surgery for carotid stenosis. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CAS with CEA. Both random and fixed effects models were used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and their confidence intervals, with values lower than one indicating a benefit from the endovascular approach. Continuity correction was used for studies with zero events in one arm. We identified 11 trials randomizing a total of 3 258 patients; 1 623 to CEA and 1 635 to CAS. By random effects model, there was no significant difference between the treatments for any stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-2.02), or death or any stroke at 30-day (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.84) and death or any stroke at 6 months (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.86-2.09) or 1 year (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.24-8.27). However there was a significantly higher risk of 30-day death or any stroke (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.01-1.75) after CAS by fixed effects model. Endovascular treatment significantly reduced the risk of 30-day cranial nerve injury (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.44). In conclusion treating carotid artery stenosis with CAS offers lower rates of cranial nerve injury compared with CEA. CAS could not be proved to be as safe as CEA in treating carotid artery stenosis. The results of ongoing randomized trials comparing CAS with CEA are easily awaited because they may provide sufficient evidence for a change in clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources