Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis
Wen-Qiang Xin,Meng-Qi Li,Ke Li,Qi-Feng Li,Yan Zhao,Wei-Han Wang,Yi-Kuan Gao,Hong-Yu Wang,Xin-Yu Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.118
Abstract:Objective: The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. Methods: We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study. Results: Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.054 to -0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285-0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483-0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228-0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS. Conclusions: Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients.