TY - JOUR
T1 - Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization of Symptomatic Internal Carotid Artery Disease
T2 - A Systematic Review and Study-Level Meta-Analysis
AU - Ghannam, Malik
AU - Almajali, Mohammad
AU - Khasiyev, Farid
AU - Dibas, Mahmoud
AU - Al Qudah, Abdullah
AU - Almajali, Fawaz
AU - Ghazaleh, Dana
AU - Shah, Asghar
AU - Fayad, Fayez H.
AU - Joudi, Kareem
AU - Zaidat, Bashar
AU - Childs, Christopher A.
AU - Levy, Bennett R.
AU - Abouainain, Yasmeen
AU - Özdemir-Van Brunschot, Denise M.D.
AU - Shu, Liqi
AU - Goldstein, Eric D.
AU - Baig, Ammad A.
AU - Roeder, Hannah
AU - Henninger, Nils
AU - De Havenon, Adam
AU - Levy, Elad I.
AU - Matouk, Charles
AU - Derdeyn, Colin P.
AU - Leira, Enrique C.
AU - Chaturvedi, Seemant
AU - Yaghi, Shadi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/4/1
Y1 - 2024/4/1
N2 - BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an interventional therapy for symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. Currently, the utilization of TCAR is contentious due to limited evidence. In this study, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of TCAR in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery disease compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, spanning from January 2000 to February 2023, encompassing studies that used TCAR for the treatment of symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. The primary outcomes included a 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised cranial nerve injury and major bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were calculated to compare TCAR with CEA and CAS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed based on age and degree of stenosis. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding the vascular quality initiative registry population. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies involving 24246 patients were analyzed. Within this patient cohort, 4771 individuals underwent TCAR, 12350 underwent CEA, and 7125 patients underwent CAS. Compared with CAS, TCAR was associated with a similar rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.33-1.82]) and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.83-2.01]) but lower mortality (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with a higher rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03-1.54]) but similar rates of myocardial infarction (OR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.64-1.38]) and mortality (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.87-2.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA has traditionally been considered superior to stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis, TCAR may have some advantages over CAS. Prospective randomized trials comparing the 3 modalities are needed.
AB - BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an interventional therapy for symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. Currently, the utilization of TCAR is contentious due to limited evidence. In this study, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of TCAR in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery disease compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, spanning from January 2000 to February 2023, encompassing studies that used TCAR for the treatment of symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. The primary outcomes included a 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised cranial nerve injury and major bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were calculated to compare TCAR with CEA and CAS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed based on age and degree of stenosis. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding the vascular quality initiative registry population. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies involving 24246 patients were analyzed. Within this patient cohort, 4771 individuals underwent TCAR, 12350 underwent CEA, and 7125 patients underwent CAS. Compared with CAS, TCAR was associated with a similar rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.33-1.82]) and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.83-2.01]) but lower mortality (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with a higher rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03-1.54]) but similar rates of myocardial infarction (OR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.64-1.38]) and mortality (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.87-2.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA has traditionally been considered superior to stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis, TCAR may have some advantages over CAS. Prospective randomized trials comparing the 3 modalities are needed.
KW - carotid stenosis
KW - perioperative complications
KW - symptomatic
KW - transcarotid artery revascularization
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85188805513
U2 - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.044246
DO - 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.044246
M3 - Article
C2 - 38299350
AN - SCOPUS:85188805513
SN - 0039-2499
VL - 55
SP - 921
EP - 930
JO - Stroke
JF - Stroke
IS - 4
ER -