[Current guidelines on carotid artery stenting. Critical evaluation]

Abstract

Scientific data underlying current guidelines on treatment of carotid artery stenosis is subject to interdisciplinary discussion. In particular selective weighting of the randomized European studies leads to conflicting levels of recommendation and levels of evidence, especially when directly comparing guidelines under surgical versus endovascular guidance. Surgical guidelines recommend a limitation of carotid artery stenting (CAS) to symptomatic patients with specific surgical/anatomical disadvantages and/or severe comorbidities. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend the use of CAS only in patients at increased surgical risk but at the same time requires morbidity and mortality rates comparable to those of surgical interventions. Even one step further, the American guidelines and specifically the associated comments of the German Society of Cardiology on the above mentioned ESC guidelines put CAS and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on a par in terms of treatment alternatives, presupposing analogous CEA complication rates. Differential interpretation of the so far inadequate data is a common issue of current evidence-based medicine. The difficulty in conceptualization of new studies concerning the therapy of carotid stenosis lies in the funding these large projects and also on the high patient number required to achieve adequate statistical power. Furthermore, during the estimated long study period substantial changes of current techniques and devices can be anticipated which might render the study results in part outdated by the time of publication. However, as long as no new randomized study results comparing medical, surgical and interventional treatment of carotid stenosis are available, the question on the optimal therapy for patients with carotid artery disease remains unanswered.