Incidence of Perioperative Outcomes After Carotid Revascularization With Special Emphasis on Myocardial Infarction - A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.
{"title":"Incidence of Perioperative Outcomes After Carotid Revascularization With Special Emphasis on Myocardial Infarction - A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.","authors":"Panagiota Valaki, Konstantinos G Moulakakis, Spyridon Mylonas, Christos Karathanos, Konstantinos Batzalexis, Athanasios Giannoukas","doi":"10.1177/15385744251330930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background and AimThe aim of this study is to estimate the incidence of periprocedural outcomes after carotid revascularization with special emphasis on myocardial infarction and assess the safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) through systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA multiple electronic search was performed in Medline (database provider PubMed), Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE (database provider Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for articles from 2000 up to 2023 reporting outcomes after carotid revascularization. Randomized control trials comparing the perioperative events (30-day results) after CAS and CEA stating the perioperative risk of myocardial infarction were included in the present meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsA total of twelve randomized control trials (RCTs) with 11 153 patients were identified and considered eligible. The pooled risk of periprocedural stroke was found to be reduced after CEA compared to CAS [OR: 1.6, CI 95%:1.3-2.1, <i>P</i> < 0.05], while PMI was found to be more frequent after CEA, favoring CAS [OR: 0.4, CI 95%: 0.2-0.7, <i>P</i> < 0.05]. Periprocedural mortality was lower but not reaching statistical significance in the CEA compared to CAS [OR: 1.1, CI 95%: 0.6-2.1, <i>P</i> = 0.68]. The pooled OR for composite endpoint of stroke, MI or death was in favor of CEA as safer treatment [OR: 1.3, CI 95%: 1-1.5, <i>P</i> < 0.05].ConclusionsPMI risk was lower after CAS, although the currently available data do not demonstrate any increase in mortality rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":"641-653"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744251330930","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and AimThe aim of this study is to estimate the incidence of periprocedural outcomes after carotid revascularization with special emphasis on myocardial infarction and assess the safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) through systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA multiple electronic search was performed in Medline (database provider PubMed), Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE (database provider Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for articles from 2000 up to 2023 reporting outcomes after carotid revascularization. Randomized control trials comparing the perioperative events (30-day results) after CAS and CEA stating the perioperative risk of myocardial infarction were included in the present meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsA total of twelve randomized control trials (RCTs) with 11 153 patients were identified and considered eligible. The pooled risk of periprocedural stroke was found to be reduced after CEA compared to CAS [OR: 1.6, CI 95%:1.3-2.1, P < 0.05], while PMI was found to be more frequent after CEA, favoring CAS [OR: 0.4, CI 95%: 0.2-0.7, P < 0.05]. Periprocedural mortality was lower but not reaching statistical significance in the CEA compared to CAS [OR: 1.1, CI 95%: 0.6-2.1, P = 0.68]. The pooled OR for composite endpoint of stroke, MI or death was in favor of CEA as safer treatment [OR: 1.3, CI 95%: 1-1.5, P < 0.05].ConclusionsPMI risk was lower after CAS, although the currently available data do not demonstrate any increase in mortality rates.
颈动脉血运重建术后围手术期结果的发生率,特别是心肌梗死--随机对照试验的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。
背景与目的本研究旨在通过系统回顾和meta分析,评估颈动脉重建术(尤其是心肌梗死)后围手术期结局的发生率,并评估颈动脉支架植入术(CAS)和颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的安全性。方法在Medline(数据库提供商PubMed)、Web of Science Core Collection、EMBASE(数据库提供商Ovid)和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials数据库中检索2000年至2023年报道颈动脉血运重建术结果的文章。根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,本荟萃分析纳入了比较CAS和CEA围手术期事件(30天结果)表明心肌梗死围手术期风险的随机对照试验。结果共纳入12项随机对照试验(rct),纳入11 153例患者。与CAS相比,CEA后围手术期卒中的总风险降低[OR: 1.6, CI 95%:1.3-2.1, P < 0.05],而CEA后PMI更频繁,有利于CAS [OR: 0.4, CI 95%: 0.2-0.7, P < 0.05]。与CAS相比,CEA的围手术期死亡率较低,但未达到统计学意义[OR: 1.1, CI 95%: 0.6-2.1, P = 0.68]。卒中、心肌梗死或死亡复合终点的合并OR支持CEA作为更安全的治疗方法[OR: 1.3, CI 95%: 1-1.5, P < 0.05]。结论CAS后spmi风险较低,但目前可获得的数据未显示死亡率有任何增加。