SynthesisMedicine2015
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis: A Chronological and Worldwide Study.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of treatment strategies for asymptomatic carotid disease.Scientific reports · 2018Pooled it
- Long-term efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with similar outcomes to carotid endarterectomy regardless of patient risk status.Journal of vascular surgery · 2022Article
- Physician Approaches to Imaging and Revascularization for Acutely Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Insights from the Hot Carotid Qualitative Study.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Equipoise in Management of Patients With Acute Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis (Hot Carotid).Neurology. Clinical practice · 2021Article
- Personalized-medicine on carotid endarterectomy and stenting.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Evaluation of 3D printed carotid anatomical models in planning carotid artery stenting.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2019Article
- Practice Current: How do you manage patients with a "hot carotid"?Neurology. Clinical practice · 2018Article
- Protected versus Unprotected Carotid Artery Stenting : Meta-Analysis of the Current Literature.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2018Article
- Treatment Strategy Based on Plaque Vulnerability and the Treatment Risk Evaluation for Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2018Article
- Carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy in the treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional medicine · 2018Article
- Carotid artery stenting vs. carotid endarterectomy in the management of carotid artery stenosis: Lessons learned from randomized controlled trials.Surgical neurology international · 2018Review
- Article
- Observational
- Observational
- Impact of baseline characteristics on outcomes of carotid artery stenting in acute ischemic stroke patients.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2016Article
- Hybrid approach in a difficult case of pseudoaneurysm of right common carotid artery.Indian heart journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are disparities among the results of meta-analyses under different circumstances of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid stenosis. This study aimed to assess the efficacies of CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis at 5-year intervals and worldwide.Comparative studies simultaneously reporting CAS and CEA for carotid stenosis with at least 10 patients in each group were identified by searching PubMed and Embase in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles.The studies were stratified into different subgroups according to the publication year, location in which the study was mainly performed, and randomized and nonrandomized study designs.Thirty-five comparative studies encompassing 27,525 patients were identified. The risk ratios (RRs) of stroke/death when CAS was compared with CEA within 30 d of treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.32-1.74, P < 0.001) for overall, 1.50 (95% CI 1.14-1.98, P = 0.004) from 2011 to 2015, 1.61 (95% CI 1.35-1.91, P < 0.001) from 2006 to 2010, 1.59 (95% CI 1.27-1.99, P < 0.001) in North America, 1.50 (95% CI 1.24-1.81, P < 0.001) in Europe, 1.63 (95% CI 1.31-2.02, P < 0.001) for randomized, and 1.44 (95% CI 1.20-1.73, P < 0.001) for nonrandomized comparative studies. CEA decreased the risks of transient ischemic attack at 30 d (RR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.50-2.85, P < 0.001) and restenosis at 1-year (RR: 1.97, 95% CI 1.28-3.05, P = 0.002). Data from follow-up showed that the RRs of stroke/death were 0.74 (95% CI 0.55-0.99, P = 0.04) at 1 year, 1.24 (95% CI 1.04-1.46, P = 0.01) at 4 year, and 2.27 (95% CI 1.39-3.71, P = 0.001) at 10 year. This systematic review, compared with those of other meta-analyses, included all available comparative studies and analyzed them at 5-year intervals, in different continents, and under different study designs. Current evidence suggests that the efficacy of CEA is superior to CAS for freedom from stroke/death within 30 d, especially from 2006 to 2015, in North America and Europe. Meanwhile, the superiority was also observed for restenosis at 1-year, transient ischemic attack within 30 d, and stroke/death at 4- and 10-year follow-ups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.