Safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-9026.2011.05.005
- VernacularTitle:颈动脉支架与内膜切除术治疗颈动脉狭窄疗效和安全性的Meta分析
- Author:
Qingguo LIU
;
Ning ZHOU
;
Zhibin SONG
;
Jianwei GAO
;
Xuguang LI
;
Yunli WU
;
Long WANG
;
Qiang GUO
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Carotid stenosis;
Stent;
Endarterectomy,carotid;
Evidence-based medicine
- From:
Chinese Journal of Geriatrics
2011;30(5):369-373
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy(CEA) for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Methods The electronic databases (PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang) were searched in order to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about comparing CAS and CEA for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Cochrane collaboration's RevMan 5.0.24 were used for analyzing data. Results Twelve RCTs totalling 6903 patients (3460 patients were randomized to CAS and 3443 randomized to CEA) with symptomatic or asymptomatic stenosis were included in the meta-analysis. There were significantly higher 30-day relative risks after CAS than after CEA for death or any stroke [RR=1.64, 95%CI (1.33-2.03), P＜0.00001] and for stroke [RR=1.70, 95%CI (1.34-2.14), P＜0.00001]. The relative risks of myocardial infarction [RR=0.62, 95%CI (0.39-0.97), P=0.04] and cranial neuropathy [RR=0.07, 95%CI (0.03-0.16), P＜0.00001] was significantly less after CAS than after CEA. The relative risks of death [RR=1.27, 95%CI (0.82-1.96), P=0.29] or disabling stroke within 30 days [RR=1.33, 95%CI (0.78-2.28), P=0.29] and any stroke or death at 1 year after the procedures [RR=0.96, 95%CI (0.63-1.46), P=0.84] did not differ significantly between CAS and CEA operation. Conclusions CEA remains the first choice for treatment of carotid stenosis for patients with low surgery risk. For patients with high surgery risk and unsuitable for surgery, CAS has more advantages. It is reasonable to view CAS and CEA as complementary rather than competing modes of therapy.
