If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: Evaluating the overlapping meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials
Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USANuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences and Department for Continuing Education (EBHC program), Oxford University, UK
Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke. The management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis ranges from open surgical approaches, minimally invasive endovascular interventions, and medical therapeutics. However, the research synthesis comparing these interventions, as shown by the scattered and overlapping published meta-analysis, has been inconsistent and non-comprehensive.
Methods
Using previously-employed methods, we searched for and compared published meta-analyses comparing carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting. A comprehensive search was conducted for all relevant studies published until November 13th, 2021, using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OVID, and Google Scholar.
Results
Five meta-analysis studies were included in this review. In summary, clinical findings were: carotid endarterectomy reduced the rate of ischemic stroke and stroke-related mortality, but led to a higher rate of intraoperative cranial nerve injury. There was no significant difference between carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting in ipsilateral stroke and myocardial infarction events.
Conclusions
The clinical findings favor the carotid endarterectomy over the carotid stenting in terms of stroke incidence (overall and minor events) and stroke-related mortality rates. However, the carotid stenting was superior to the carotid endarterectomy in the events of cranial nerve injury during the intervention.
Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is among the significant causes of ischemic stroke. The management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis ranges from open surgical approaches, minimally invasive endovascular interventions, and medical therapeutics [
]. Over the past two decades, it has been proven that surgical intervention is superior to medical therapeutics to prevent disease progression and induce ipsilateral ischemic stroke [
]. With the advances in the neurosurgical field within the last decade, various surgical interventions have emerged, including minimal invasive intervention to access and stent carotid stenosis. However, to date, the literature evidence regarding the interventional strategies for asymptomatic carotid stenosis is controversial and discordant.
To date, several meta-analyses have analyzed the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy compared to carotid stenting for asymptomatic carotid stenosis [
]. However, the reviews and meta-analyses on this topic—comparing carotid endarterectomy against carotid stenting—do not present consistent findings for these interventions and thus lead to discordant interpretations. Overlapping but non-confirmatory meta-analyses on the same research question are common and may lead to conflicting results. Hence, it is challenging to draw conclusions from the existing literature until the meta-analyses comparing these interventions are harmonized.
This systematic review aims to evaluate all published meta-analyses comparing carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting for asymptomatic carotid stenosis and highlight the gaps in the current evidence.
2. Materials and methods
This study was designed in line with prior published studies using the same approach to aggregate and compare meta-analytical findings [
Does intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection provide clinically superior outcomes compared with other therapies in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis? a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.
A comprehensive search was conducted for all relevant studies published before November 13th, 2021, using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, OVID, and Google Scholar using The relevant keywords included "Carotid Endarterectomy AND Carotid Stenosis", "Carotid Endarterectomy AND Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis", "Carotid Stenting AND Carotid Stenosis", "Carotid Stenting AND Carotid Stenosis", "Carotid Stenting AND Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis", "Carotid Endarterectomy AND Carotid Stenting AND Carotid Stenosis", "Carotid Endarterectomy AND Carotid Stenting AND Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis". We filtered the search results to include only meta-analyses. Screening of the search results was conducted by two authors independently. Titles and abstracts were first screened, followed by full texts. Disagreements between authors were resolved by group discussion and through the help of a third author. Study metadata and abstracts were uploaded to the AutoLit platform (Nested Knowledge, St. Paul, MN) for screening and extraction.
2.2 Eligibility criteria
We included meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. Non-RCT meta-analyses, systematic reviews without meta-analyses, review articles, editorials, case reports, and case series were excluded.
2.3 Data extraction
Data extraction was conducted by two authors independently for the following data: author, year/month of publication, study design, number of included RCTs in each meta-analysis, number of patients in both the Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Stenting groups, percent heterogeneity, and the results of the studies. The following outcomes were compared among different studies; overall stroke rate, ipsilateral stroke, major stroke, minor stroke, myocardial infarction, mortality, cranial nerve injury, overall complications.
2.4 Quality assessment
We used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (AMSTAR) [
] to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. AMSTAR is widely used to assess the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses with good reliability [
]. Two authors conducted the quality assessment criteria; a third author resolved any conflicts.
3. Results
3.1 Literature search
The PRISMA flowchart for the study selection process is shown in Fig. 1. Database search retrieved overall number of 1020 searching results. After applying the filter of meta-analysis inclusion only, 975 articles were excluded. 45 articles were eligible to the next phase of screening, of which we excluded 30 due to the fact that these studies reported symptomatic cases only. 15 articles were sought for final (full-text) screening, ten out of them were excluded because they were non-RCT meta-analysis. Overall number of five studies were included in this systematic review. The flowchart illustrated the selection criteria for the included studies in this systematic review, and also mentioned the exclusion reasons.
The characteristics of the included studies are highlighted in Table 1. We highlighted details about the published journal name, number of included patients within each intervention and date of publication. Last database search for the included meta-analyses ranged between April 2016 and July 2017. The number of included RCTs in each meta-analysis ranged between five to up nine studies.
Does intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection provide clinically superior outcomes compared with other therapies in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis? a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.
The Q-statistics and I2 values were used to quantify heterogeneity (Table 3). Four studies used sensitivity analysis and only one study Kakkos et al. [
There was heterogeneity among studies regarding the included rials, selection criteria, and methodology. This led to discordant results across the meta-analyses. The results of each meta-analysis are shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2Results of the Included Meta-analyses. Numbers within each cell reflect the number of pooled primary studies in each analysis.
All the included studies investigated the same research question: Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. However, the meta-analyses did not have the same primary trials, meaning the underlying set of data differed across meta-analyses. The included primary trials of each meta-analysis are listed in Table 2.
3.6 Selection criteria and methodology
The included meta-analyses did not have the same selection criteria. Galyfos G et al. [
] included RCTs up to July 2017 with no lower limit for searching of results. The authors excluded trials with less than 50 total patients, trials reporting symptomatic patients, trials with unequal distribution of medical therapy, and trials published in a language other than English. Yuan G et al. [
] included RCTs up to March 2016 with no lower limit for searching of results. The authors excluded non-RCT trials, but they did not set language restrictions to their exclusion criteria. The study by Cui L et al. [
] included RCTs from 1994 up to May 2017. The authors excluded non-RCT trials and non-English trials without indicating another criterion. The study by Kakkos et al. [
] included RCTs up to March 2017 with no lower limit for searching of results. The authors excluded non-English RCTs. However, the authors requested unpublished data to be included in their study from investigators of unpublished trials. Moresoli P et al. [
] included all RCTs without lower limit in the date up to April 2016 and limited their results to English and French Language only. In addition to that, they did not include non-published materials in their analysis. Each study's language restriction and methodological details are listed in Supplementary Table 1.
Studies that reported fewer outcomes than expected were deemed of lower quality. According to this criteria, Kakkos et al. [
According to Oxford Levels of Evidence, all the primary studies were RCTs and considered level II evidence (Table 4). Only one study by Kakkos et al. [
] used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for quality assessment. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) results are presented in Table 5. The lowest AMSTAR score (Moderate) was given for Galyfos G et al. [
Table 5AMSTAR Assessment for the Included Studies. Moderate= More than one non-critical weakness (the meta-analysis has more than one weakness but no critical flaws), High= No or one non-critical weakness (the meta-analysis provides am accurate and comprehensive presentation of the results).
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the overlapping meta-analyses investigating Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. According to the Jadad decision algorithm, the study by Kakkos et al. [
] represents the highest quality meta-analysis comparing Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. Moreover, the identified discordant findings across studies show the need for higher-quality and better-coordinated meta-analyses. Although the findings of Kakkos et al. are the highest quality, they may require further assessment since the authors did not include 8 + studies found by other searches. Furthermore, the underlying studies support endarterectomy on major clinical outcomes other than risk of cranial nerve injury.
] concluded that Carotid Endarterectomy is superior to Carotid Stenting in most clinical outcomes, including overall stroke rate, significant stroke incidence, minor stroke incidence, and mortality risk. However, the risk of cranial nerve injury was favoring the carotid stenting group over the carotid endarterectomy. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between both interventions regarding the risk of developing ipsilateral stroke and the risk of myocardial infarction. Major stroke was defined as a stroke-inducing disability or morality, while minor stroke was defined as non-disabling (Fig. 2).
We found conflicting results among different meta-analyses in the literature. The study by Galyfos et al. [
] demonstrated that the overall stroke rate favored the carotid endarterectomy group, while the risk of developing ipsilateral stroke, myocardial infarction, mortality rate, and the overall complications was similar between carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting. Yuan G et al. [
] reported only three outcomes; the overall stroke rate and the mortality rate were similar between both groups, while the risk of myocardial infarction favored the carotid stenting group. The study by Cui L et al. [
] favored carotid endarterectomy regarding the overall stroke rate and minor stroke incidence. However, the risk of developing ipsilateral stroke, significant stroke incidence, myocardial infarction, and mortality rate were all comparable between carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting. The study by Moresoli P et al. [
] did not favor an intervention regarding all clinical outcomes, except the risk of cranial nerve injury. It favored the carotid stenting over the carotid endarterectomy. The potential reasons for these discordant results are different eligibility criteria by authors and different databases for the search strategy. Some studies did not perform a comprehensive search in all available scientific databases. Furthermore, the different timeframe of the conducted searches is a possible contributing reason.
There are several reasons why the study by Kakkos et al. [
] was found to have the highest quality of evidence. At first, this meta-analysis included nine studies, making it the most extensive meta-analysis in the current literature. Second, the authors followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to conduct their study. Nevertheless, Kakkos et al. [
] acknowledged several limitations influencing their results. First, the GRADE assessment method for stroke and myocardial infarction outcomes showed insufficient and moderate evidence levels. Second, the number of myocardial infarction events was low to provide significant evidence. Third, the results suggested that the carotid endarterectomy is superior to the carotid stenting.
The strengths of this study include the focus on reviewing the highest evidence quality and determination of the best results based on specific decision algorithms. According to Oxford Levels of Evidence, our study was limited to level I evidence. However, our results are limited by the quality of the included meta-analyses and their inherent limitations.
5. Conclusions
The clinical findings favor the carotid endarterectomy over the carotid stenting in terms of stroke incidence (overall and minor events) and stroke-related mortality rates. There was no significant difference between carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting in ipsilateral stroke and myocardial infarction events. However, the carotid stenting was superior to the carotid endarterectomy in the events of cranial nerve injury during the intervention. Further meta-analytical studies investigating the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy versus carotid stenting should draw from the findings of Kakkos et al. but ensure that a comprehensive search is undertaken of all subsequent evidence to continue updating the research synthesis on this clinical question.
Ethical statement
This work was completely free from involving human subjects.
Funding
None.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
KMK works for and holds equity in Nested Knowledge, Inc., works for Conway Medical LLC, and holds equity in Superior Medical Experts, Inc. DK has the following conflicts: Ownership in Nested Knowledge, Inc., Superior Medical Experts, Inc., Conway Medical LLC; Research support from: Microvention, Balt USA, Medtronic.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Nested Knowledge developers, including Karl Holub, Stephen Mead, Jeff Johnson, and Darian Lehmann-Plantenberg, who made this study possible by creating the AutoLit and Synthesis platforms for systematic review.
Does intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injection provide clinically superior outcomes compared with other therapies in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis? a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.
00067-3&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
00067-3&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
00067-3&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}