Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > International Angiology > Fascicoli precedenti > International Angiology 2010 Giugno;29(3) > International Angiology 2010 Giugno;29(3):205-15



Rivista di Angiologia

Official Journal of the International Union of Angiology, the International Union of Phlebology and the Central European Vascular Forum
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,899

Periodicità: Bimestrale

ISSN 0392-9590

Online ISSN 1827-1839


International Angiology 2010 Giugno;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

Bakoyiannis C., Economopoulos K. P., Georgopoulos S., Bastounis E., Papalambros E.

First Department of Surgery, Vascular Division, University of Athens, “Laiko” General Hospital, Athens, Greece

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.

lingua: Inglese


inizio pagina