Home > Journals > International Angiology > Past Issues > International Angiology 2020 October;39(5) > International Angiology 2020 October;39(5):372-80



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


REVIEW  CAROTID DISEASE Editor’s choice • Free accessfree

International Angiology 2020 October;39(5):372-80

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.20.04434-X


language: English

A systematic review and meta-analysis of carotid artery stenting using the transcervical approach

Petroula N. NANA 1 , Alexandros G. BROTIS 2, Konstantinos T. SPANOS 1, George N. KOUVELOS 1, Miltiadis I. MATSAGKAS 1, Athanasios D. GIANNOUKAS 1

1 Department of Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece; 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece

INTRODUCTION: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transcarotid revascularization (TCAR) approach has emerged as an alternative when carotid endarterectomy or conventional CAS is contraindicated. The present study was conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of TCAR in patients with carotid artery stenosis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed, according to PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), using PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. The primary outcomes included technical success, perioperative neurological event, myocardial ischemic events, death and their composite. Operational duration, flow reversal time and any local procedure related complication (carotid dissection and cranial nerve injury) were also recorded.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies were included, reporting on 3130 patients, undergoing TCAR. Thirty-five per cent of them were symptomatic. Technical success was 98% (95% CI: 0.97-0.99; P=0.11, I2=32%). Early (30-day) new neurological event rate was estimated at 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02; P=1.0, I2=0%, respectively) while early death rate was 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; P=1.0, I2=0%). Myocardial ischemic (MI) event rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=0.97, I2=6.6%). The composite outcome of neurological event/MI/death at 30-day follow-up was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02, P=0.79, I2=14%). Carotid dissection rate during the intervention was 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.03, P=0.58, I2=2.9%) while the post-operatively detected cranial nerve injury rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.01, P=1.0, I2=0%). Regarding the technical aspects of the procedures, operational and flow reversal time were at 73.8 min and 13.7 min, respectively (95% CI: 68.2-79.3, P=0.18, I2=37.6% and 95% CI: 11.3-16.1, P=0.48, I2=0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: TCAR is feasible with high technical success rate. The procedure presents low incidence of local complications, neurological events, myocardial complications and mortality during the early postoperative period and should be considered an acceptable alternative for patients treated for carotid artery stenosis.

KEY WORDS: Stents; Angioplasty; Meta-analysis

top of page