Transcarotid Artery Revascularization for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Zhi-Cheng Jiang, Qi-Fei Hu, Jia-Ming Huang, Xian-Wei Wang, Tong Lin, Xi-Lin Gao, Jia-Wen Cui, Jing-Lin Zhao, Dong Chen, Shu-Peng Li
{"title":"Transcarotid Artery Revascularization for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Zhi-Cheng Jiang, Qi-Fei Hu, Jia-Ming Huang, Xian-Wei Wang, Tong Lin, Xi-Lin Gao, Jia-Wen Cui, Jing-Lin Zhao, Dong Chen, Shu-Peng Li","doi":"10.1007/s12975-026-01457-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis remains controversial despite advances in contemporary best medical therapy. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been introduced as an alternative revascularization option alongside carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Evidence focused specifically on asymptomatic carotid disease, however, remains limited and is derived mainly from observational analyses of clinical databases, with only a small amount of single-center retrospective evidence. The present study therefore examined the available comparative evidence on TCAR for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of studies reporting outcomes of TCAR in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Eligible studies included asymptomatic cohorts or mixed populations with extractable asymptomatic subgroup data and reported outcomes after TCAR with comparison against CEA and/or TF-CAS. The primary pooled outcomes were stroke, death, stroke or death, and myocardial infarction at 30 days, together with the corresponding stroke, death, and stroke or death outcomes at approximately 1 year. For TCAR versus CEA, no significant between-group differences were identified in the pooled 30-day risks of stroke (risk ratio (RR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.59; I²=82%), death (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.64-1.38; I²=57%), or stroke or death (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.26; I²=75%). In contrast, myocardial infarction within 30 days occurred less frequently after TCAR (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96; I²=71%). At approximately 1 year, pooled estimates likewise showed no significant difference in stroke (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.29; I²=0%) or death (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; I²=0%), whereas the pooled estimate for stroke or death favored CEA (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36; I²=31%). A different pattern emerged in the TCAR versus TF-CAS comparison. TCAR was associated with significantly lower pooled 30-day risks of stroke (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; I²=0%), death (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81; I²=20%), and stroke or death (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.70; I²=6%), while no significant difference was observed for 30-day myocardial infarction (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.29; I²=44%). At approximately 1 year, stroke remained comparable between the 2 groups (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46-1.23; I²=26%), whereas death (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20; I²=66%) and stroke or death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87; I²=45%) differed, with the pooled stroke-or-death estimate favoring TCAR. Current observational evidence suggests that TCAR compares favorably with TF-CAS in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. When compared with CEA, TCAR does not appear to provide a clear benefit in pooled perioperative neurologic outcomes, although myocardial infarction may occur less frequently after TCAR.</p>","PeriodicalId":23237,"journal":{"name":"Translational Stroke Research","volume":"17 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13249911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Stroke Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12975-026-01457-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis remains controversial despite advances in contemporary best medical therapy. Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has been introduced as an alternative revascularization option alongside carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). Evidence focused specifically on asymptomatic carotid disease, however, remains limited and is derived mainly from observational analyses of clinical databases, with only a small amount of single-center retrospective evidence. The present study therefore examined the available comparative evidence on TCAR for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of studies reporting outcomes of TCAR in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Eligible studies included asymptomatic cohorts or mixed populations with extractable asymptomatic subgroup data and reported outcomes after TCAR with comparison against CEA and/or TF-CAS. The primary pooled outcomes were stroke, death, stroke or death, and myocardial infarction at 30 days, together with the corresponding stroke, death, and stroke or death outcomes at approximately 1 year. For TCAR versus CEA, no significant between-group differences were identified in the pooled 30-day risks of stroke (risk ratio (RR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.59; I²=82%), death (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.64-1.38; I²=57%), or stroke or death (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.26; I²=75%). In contrast, myocardial infarction within 30 days occurred less frequently after TCAR (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96; I²=71%). At approximately 1 year, pooled estimates likewise showed no significant difference in stroke (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.29; I²=0%) or death (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; I²=0%), whereas the pooled estimate for stroke or death favored CEA (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36; I²=31%). A different pattern emerged in the TCAR versus TF-CAS comparison. TCAR was associated with significantly lower pooled 30-day risks of stroke (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; I²=0%), death (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81; I²=20%), and stroke or death (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.70; I²=6%), while no significant difference was observed for 30-day myocardial infarction (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.29; I²=44%). At approximately 1 year, stroke remained comparable between the 2 groups (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46-1.23; I²=26%), whereas death (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20; I²=66%) and stroke or death (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87; I²=45%) differed, with the pooled stroke-or-death estimate favoring TCAR. Current observational evidence suggests that TCAR compares favorably with TF-CAS in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. When compared with CEA, TCAR does not appear to provide a clear benefit in pooled perioperative neurologic outcomes, although myocardial infarction may occur less frequently after TCAR.

经颈动脉重建术治疗无症状颈动脉狭窄:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
无症状颈动脉狭窄的管理仍然存在争议,尽管在当代最好的医学治疗进展。经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)已被引入作为颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和经股颈动脉支架置入术(TF-CAS)的另一种血管重建术选择。然而,专门针对无症状颈动脉疾病的证据仍然有限,并且主要来自临床数据库的观察性分析,只有少量的单中心回顾性证据。因此,本研究检查了TCAR治疗无症状颈动脉狭窄的可用比较证据。对报道TCAR治疗无症状颈动脉狭窄的研究结果进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。符合条件的研究包括无症状队列或混合人群,具有可提取的无症状亚组数据和TCAR后与CEA和/或TF-CAS比较的报告结果。主要汇总结果为30天内的卒中、死亡、卒中或死亡和心肌梗死,以及大约1年内相应的卒中、死亡和卒中或死亡结果。TCAR组与CEA组相比,30天卒中总风险无显著差异(风险比(RR), 1.25;95% ci, 0.98-1.59;²= 82%),死亡(RR, 0.94; 95%置信区间,0.64 - -1.38;我²= 57%),或中风或死亡(RR, 1.10; 95%置信区间,0.95 - -1.26;我²= 75%)。相比之下,TCAR术后30天内心肌梗死发生率较低(RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96; I²=71%)。大约1年后,汇总估计同样显示卒中(RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.70-2.29; I²=0%)或死亡(RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; I²=0%)无显著差异,而卒中或死亡的汇总估计有利于CEA (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.15-1.36; I²=31%)。在TCAR和TF-CAS的比较中出现了不同的模式。TCAR与30天卒中(RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; I²=0%)、死亡(RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81; I²=20%)、卒中或死亡(RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.70; I²=6%)的合并风险显著降低相关,而30天心肌梗死(RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.29; I²=44%)的合并风险无显著差异。大约1年后,两组间卒中仍然具有可比性(RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46-1.23; I²=26%),而死亡(RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20; I²=66%)和卒中或死亡(RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87; I²=45%)不同,卒中或死亡的综合估计倾向于TCAR。目前的观察证据表明,TCAR在治疗无症状颈动脉狭窄方面优于TF-CAS。与CEA相比,TCAR在围手术期神经预后方面似乎没有明显的优势,尽管TCAR后心肌梗死的发生率可能较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Translational Stroke Research
Translational Stroke Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
130
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Translational Stroke Research covers basic, translational, and clinical studies. The Journal emphasizes novel approaches to help both to understand clinical phenomenon through basic science tools, and to translate basic science discoveries into the development of new strategies for the prevention, assessment, treatment, and enhancement of central nervous system repair after stroke and other forms of neurotrauma. Translational Stroke Research focuses on translational research and is relevant to both basic scientists and physicians, including but not restricted to neuroscientists, vascular biologists, neurologists, neuroimagers, and neurosurgeons.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书